/ 

[  LIBRARY 

I     UNIVERSITY  OF     I 
\CALIFORNIA/ 


THE  BELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 


THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

NEW  YORK   •    BOSTON  •   CHICAGO  •   DALLAS 
ATLANTA   •   SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO..  LIMITED 

LONDON   •    BOMBAY   •   CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OP  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


THE 
RELIGION   OF  SCIENCE 


BY 

WILLIAM  HAMILTON  WOOD 

PROFESSOR  or  BIBLICAL  HISTORY  AND  LITERATURE, 
DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE,  HANOVER,  N.  H. 


MACMILLAN  AND  CO.,  LIMITED 
ST.   MARTIN'S  STREET,  LONDON 


Printed  in  U.  S.  A. 


\rfS97 


TO  MY  WIFE 
MABEL  MUNSON  WOOD 

A  TEUE  COMPANION  AND  HELPMEET 
THIS  BOOS  IS  DEDICATED 


286 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  religious  situation  in  America  to-day  seems  far 
from  being  ideal.  On  the  surface  there  is  criticism,  pes- 
simism, belligerency,  neglect,  or  honest  bewilderment. 
The  reasons  for  these  conditions  are  not  primarily  moral 
as  in  the  days  of  the  Wesleys  in  England,  but  intellectual. 
This  term,  intellectual,  is  used  in  the  sense  of  beliefs  and 
would  express  the  fact  that  men  of  to-day  are  searching 
for  religious  truth  which  they  can  believe.  We  believe 
that  there  is  present  to-day  among  us  an  active  idealism, 
and  moral  qualities  of  inestimable  value.  But  we  feel 
hampered  because  of  the  absence  of  absorbing,  captivating, 
soul-stirring,  religious  beliefs. 

The  sources  of  this  situation  are  plainly  discernible. 
The  middle  of  the  last  century  marks  the  beginning  of 
present  religious  thinking.  At  that  time  there  was  a  dis- 
tinct uniformity  in  the  presentation  of  what  Christianity 
is  and  teaches.  The  main  items  were:  Hell  fire;  eternal 
•damnation;  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible;  no  salvation  for 
the  heathen;  salvation  by  faith;  the  grace  of  God;  sin; 
baptism;  and  heaven  for  those  who  believed  and  were 
faithful.  Salvation  was  individual  and  not  social.  To 
doubt  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  sins. 

TK  spirit  of  unrest  and  of  revolt  began  then  to  express 
itself,  which,  when  fortified  by  the  acquisition  of  new 
knowledge  has  been  functioning  ever  since.  The  concrete 

yii 


I N  T  E  0  D  U  C  T 1 0  N 

evidence  of  the  working  of  this  new  spirit  is  the  presence 
of  the  many  varieties  of  present-day  isms.  There  is  the 
Mental  Science  movement  initiated  by  P.  Quimby  now 
manifest  in  its  two  large  branches,  Christian  Science  and 
New  Thought.  There  is  Spiritualism,  Mormonism,  and 
all  the  others.  But  the  three  movements  which  have  pro- 
foundly influenced  religious  thinking  are:  Evolution,  the 
Higher  Criticism  and  Socialism. 

The  year  1859  witnessed  the  rebirth  of  the  idea  evolu- 
tion and  the  revamping  of  the  theory  into  its  distinctive 
form,  organic  evolution.  The  conquest  of  this  idea  and 
theory  has  been  phenomenal,  and  has  extended  far  beyond 
what  sober  scientists  could  have  foreseen.  The  epochal 
moment  in  relation  to  religious  thinking  came  when  some 
men  of  science  determined  to  leave  their  own  field  and  ven- 
ture into  metaphysics,  philosophy  and  even  theology. 
These  thinkers  determined  upon  the  establishment  of 
science  as  one  of  the  big  three:  theology,  philosophy, 
science.  This  goal  was  reached  but  the  accomplishment  of 
the  aim  only  seemed  to  whet  the  appetite  for  further  con- 
quest. As  in  the  case  of  the  camel  and  the  tent,  when 
science  once  found  its  head  inside  the  tent  of  the  intellec- 
tuals it  decided  to  occupy  the  whole  tent.  Instead  of  being 
satisfied  with  a  science-theology  claim  was  made  to  the 
whole  of  theology  and  religion.  A  religion  of  science 
ensued  which  has  now  arrived  at  the  point  where  it  is 
declared  to  be  the  real  Christianity. 

Unlike  Christian  Science,  this  new  religion  decided 
against  external  forms  and  organization  and  elected  to 
live  in  and  control  modern  religious  thinking.  This  inner 
life  was  possible  because  it  has  become  the  fashion  to  «£- 

viii 


INTRODUCTION 

cept  evolution  uncritically.  It  is  almost  taking  one's  life 
in  his  hands  to  venture  a  critical  examination  of  this  mod- 
ern fetish.  Unless,  however,  we  mistake  the  signs  of  the 
times,  there  is  setting  in  a  strong  tide  away  from  this  un- 
critical and  worshipful  attitude.  This  tendency  is  more 
marked  among  philosophers  and  the  true  scientists  than 
among  the  religious  scholars  and  leaders.  The  times  now 
call  for  a  religious  and  moral  evaluation  of  the  principles 
of  science  and  the  theory  of  evolution  upon  which  this  re- 
ligion of  science  is  hased. 

There  is  one  note  of  regret  which  is  strong  through  this 
whole  work.  It  is  that  so  much  emphasis  falls  upon  the 
negative  side.  This  tendency  toward  criticism  and  nega- 
tion, instead  of  toward  constructive  production  is  entirely 
too  prevalent.  We  seem  to-day  to  spend  our  strength 
throwing  Hell  fire  and  assisting  grace  out  of  the  window; 
throwing  epithets  of  warm  composition  at  the  ecclesiasti- 
cism  and  conservatism  of  the  day ;  showing  the  faults  and 
evils  of  every  modern  religious  offering;  driving  men  of 
modern  views  out  of  educational  and  other  positions  of  in- 
fluence; in  short,  disposing  of  our  religious  beliefs  much 
more  than  trying  to  shape  the  truth  of  Christianity  into 
modern  life-giving  form.  We  would  wish,  however,  to  ex- 
press the  intention  in  this  work  in  clear  form,  which  is  a 
critical  evaluation  of  this  Religion  of  Science,  and  not  a 
desire  to  negative.  It  is  hoped  that  an  effort  to  help  meet 
the  present  hunger  for  a  positive,  rational  faith  may  be 
soon  undertaken. 

Special  acknowledgment  of  thanks  is  made  to  the  follow- 
ing men  whose  recent  books  have  brought  much  valuable 
help  and  inspiration.  To  Professor  Conklin  for  his  eour- 

ix 


INTKODUCTIOK 

age  in  following  Haeckel  and  others  out  into  the  open  and 
thus  giving  us  a  concrete  expression  of  the  religion  of 
science.  To  Professor  Cooley  for  his  clear  and  masterful 
appraisement  of  the  principles  of  science.  To  Professor 
More  for  his  incisive  treatment  of  the  limitations  of 
science.  To  Professor  Hocking  for  his  rational  idealism 
and  philosophical  expression  of  deep  religious  insight.  To 
Professor  Hudson  for  his  clear  defense  of  the  truths  we 
live  by.  To  many  others  who  may  recognize  their  own  ex- 
pressions occasionally. 

A  bibliography  is  appended  but  the  pages  are  not  loaded 
with  references.  We  have  the  feeling  that  this  has  been 
often  overdone.  If,  however,  our  use  of  material  has  ex- 
ceeded the  bounds  of  hospitality  we  are  ready  to  make 
amends. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  THE  ISSUE     ........  1 

II.  THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE         ...  17 

III.  THE        CANONS  —  MATTER  —  ENERGY  — 

MECHANISM 37 

IV.  THE  CONTROL  OF  LAW         ....  54 
V.  THE  SACRED  BIBLE  OF  NATURE  .        .        .  69 

VI.  THE  CREED — EEASON          ....  84 

VII.  THE  CREED — EVOLUTION    .....  101 

iVIII.  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION  .        .       ,..-  122 

IX.  EVOLUTION  AND  MAN  .        .        .        .        .139 

X.  THE  KEAL  CHRISTIANITY  .        .        .       .158 

XL  CONCLUSIONS               ,..       .       •>•>      .       ...  170 


CHAPTER  ONE 

THE  ISSUE 

IN  1873  Draper  in  his  "History  of  the  Conflict  Between 
Eeligion  and  Science"  gave  utterance  to  a  prophecy  which 
has  been  amply  fulfilled.  "We  live  in  a  day,"  he  wrote, 
"when  a  new  departure  on  an  unknown  sea  has  Iteen  taken." 
He  observed  that  whoever  has  had  an  opportunity  of  be- 
coming acquainted  with  the  mental  condition  of  the  intelli- 
gent classes  in  Europe  and  America  must  have  perceived 
that  there  is  a  great  and  rapidly  increasing  departure 
from  the  public  religious  faith ;  and  that,  while  among  the 
more  frank  this  divergence  is  not  concealed,  there  is  a  far 
more  extensive  and  far  more  dangerous  secession  private 
and  unacknowledged.  This  new  departure  is  away  from 
the  "compression  arising  from  traditionary  faith,"  and 
though  he  did  not  use  the  exact  words,  it  is  towards  a 
religion  of  science. 

Evidences  of  this  secession  both  open  and  private  need 
not  be  enumerated.  It  is  sufficient  to  recall  the  many  and 
manifold  criticisms  that  have  been  and  still  are  being 
hurled  at  the  church  and  against  her  leadership.  From 
press  and  platform,  from  friend  and  foe  alike,  the  "heck- 
ling" for  some  time  has  been  continuous  and  searching. 
It  is  a  fact,  however  much  we  dislike  to  repeat  it,  that  the 
intellectual  classes — using  this  word  intellectual  in  its  cus- 
tomary sense — are  not  interested  in  the  church  nor  in  her 
doctrines  and  teachings.  This  does  not  mean  that  these 

1 


THE  EELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

thinkers  are  irreligious  or  non-religious.  The  fact  is,  they 
feel  they  have  found  a  better  religious  faith  than  that  pre- 
sented by  the  ecclesiasticism  of  the  day.  Such  investiga- 
tions as  those  made  by  Professor  Leuba  are  to  the  point  in 
this  connection.1  College  teachers  know  the  present 
student  attitude  toward  traditionalism  and  ecclesiasticism. 
These  students  like  many  others  see  clearly  the  distinction 
between  the  church  and  religion,  and  while  profoundly 
idealistic  they  feel  the  lack  of  that  grip  which  they  think 
religion,  if  properly  presented,  would  have  on  them.  It  is 
putting  it  mildly  to  say  that  there  is  to-day  a  coolness 
toward  traditionary  faith. 

The  ecclesiastical  leaders  and  their  friends  are  not  un- 
aware of  the  present  condition  of  things.  Many  reasons 
are  being  offered  in  explanation  of  these  untoward  facts, 
but  among  these  two  hold  the  position  of  prominence. 
The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Theory  of  Evolution  are 
rated  as  the  real  causes;  and  this  diagnosis  of  the  case 
applies  to  many  within  the  church  as  well  as  to  certain 
groups  on  the  outside.  The  Higher  Criticism,  it  is 
claimed,  by  putting  the  Bible  on  a  level  with  all  other 
literature  has  taken  away  from  the  authority  of  scripture ; 
by  introducing  the  literary  and  historical  method  of  in- 
terpretation it  has  upset  beliefs  held  for  years  by  scholarly 
men;  and  through  its  use  no  belief  or  interpretation  is 
left  secure.  Its  findings  not  only  contradict  teachings 
held  on  good  authority  but  even  contradict  Jesus  himself. 
The  natural  result  is  that  it  reduces  religious  enthusiasm 
and  tends  toward  skepticism.  Proof  of  this  is  found  in 

i  Leuba,  "The  Belief  in  God  and  Immortality." 

2 


THE  ISSUE 

the  frequent  observation  that  where  this  modern  method 
prevails  religion  is  at  a  low  ebb.  There  is  therefore  a 
definite  issue  to-day  between  religious  truth  and  the  so- 
called  Higher  Criticism. 

There  is  also  a  definite  issue  between  those  who  seek 
to  maintain  the  fundamental  verities  of  the  faith  and  those 
who  accept  the  theory  of  evolution.  The  number  in  this 
latter  group  is  known  to  be  very  large,  and  for  years  now, 
to  have  been  decidedly  on  the  increase.  The  statement  of 
the  writer  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  on  evolution 
need  not  be  accepted  at  face  value  yet  approaches  the 
truth.  "In  the  Twentieth  Century  writers  on  biological 
subjects  no  longer  have  to  waste  space  in  weighing  evolu- 
tion against  this  or  that  religious  tradition — supporters 
of  religious  tradition  have  made  broad  their  phylacteries 
to  write  on  them  the  new  words." 

The  case  that  is  made  out  against  evolution  and  its 
devotees  specially  within  the  church  is  a  serious  one. 
Evolution  dispenses  not  only  with  faith  but  with  the  God 
of  faith.  The  hypothesis  "God"  seems  not  to  be  needed. 
Revelation  is  denied,  the  authority  of  scripture  is  im- 
pugned, miracles  are  laughed  out  of  court,  man  is  de- 
posed from  the  high  estate  given  him  by  the  Bible  and 
rated  merely  as  a  noble  animal,  naturalism  is  the  accepted 
philosophy,  freedom  is  made  a  clever  deception  and  im- 
mortality applies  only  to  the  stuff  of  the  human  body. 
Since  these  criticisms  are  accepted  as  facts  the  case  made 
out  seems  to  be  a  valid  one  and  the  issue  is  therefore 
considered  to  be  a  clear  one  between  the  conservative  and 
liberal  leaders  of  the  day. 

But  while  the  ecclesiastical  leaders  sense  clearly  the 

3 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

fact,  that  there  is  an  issue  to-day  between  religion  and 
science,  the  whole  case  is  not  stated  by  naming  the  liberal 
thinkers  as  the  central  point  in  the  issue.  It  is  true  that 
many  have  accepted  the  higher  criticism  and  evolution 
without  delving  deep  enough  into  the  meaning  and  impli- 
cations of  either  this  modern  method  of  biblical  interpre- 
tation or  of  this  all-embracing  theory.  The  influence  of 
such  thinkers  is  often  too  much  destructive  and  productive 
of  little  that  is  constructive.  The  conclusion,  then,  that  the 
prevailing  skepticism  and  defection  from  orthodox  faith 
must  be  laid  at  the  door  of  these  destructive  critics  is  a 
natural  one.  But  the  real  issue  to-day  lies  deeper  than  this 
judgment  declares.  It  is  discovered  when  we  review  the 
history  of  the  relations  between  religion  and  science  during 
the  last  few  years. 

The  present  issue  is  comparatively  modern  though  the 
warfare  between  these  two  great  factors  of  human  life  is 
very  ancient.  We  need  not  go  back  farther  than  the  time 
of  Hume  and  Kant.  Following  the  critical  work  of  these 
two  epochal  thinkers  the  conclusion  was  reached,  that 
neither  the  method  of  empirical  science  which  used  sense 
observation  only,  nor  the  method  of  exact  science  which 
made  use  of  the  concepts  of  mathematics  could  establish 
any  secure  grounds  for  religious  faith.  Religion  with  its 
three  great  verities  of  God,  Freedom  and  Immortality, 
must  be  found  to  rest  upon  more  adequate  foundations 
than  an  idea  or  a  definition  or  principles  which  were 
purely  theoretical.  The  result  was  the  delineation  of  two 
well-defined  parties — the  party  of  science  and  the  party 
of  religion.  The  separation  between  faith  and  reason 
created  the  opportunity.  When  it  was  declared  that  the 

4 


THE  ISSUE 

great  religious  verities  are  absolute,  lie  beyond  the  range 
of  reason,  could  not  be  proved  but  must  nevertheless  be 
believed,  scientists  were  not  slow  to  seize  the  opening  and 
take  possession  of  the  field  of  reason.  They  were  perfectly 
willing  to  leave  the  field  of  faith  thus  defined  to  the  re- 
ligious leaders.  Thus  reason  or  intellect  was  declared  to 
belong  to  a  different  category  and  to  stand  sharply  over 
against  feeling,  which  was  faith. 

The  breach  or  separation  thus  made  and  quietly  accepted 
grew  wider  during  the  last  century.  Reason  and  faith 
grew  more  independent  each  of  the  other,  while  science  on 
its  side  increased  in  physical  value  to  mankind.  The  con- 
viction also  gradually  deepened  that  enlightenment  be- 
longed to  the  science  leaders  because  theirs  was  the  rational 
leadership.  Because  of  this  mutual  independence  the  two- 
room,  mental-apartment  idea  came  to  the  fore.  Men  be- 
lieved that  they  could  hold  the  conclusions  and  theories  of 
science  and  at  the  same  time,  in  the  opposite  apartment, 
maintain  their  religious  faith  without  any  real  contradic- 
tion. This  is  the  belief  so  often  expressed  to-day,  that 
there  is  no  real  war  between  religion  and  science;  but  at 
that  time  the  explanation  was  given  as  outlined  above. 
There  was  no  conflict,  because  a  man  could  be  two  men 
and  hold  his  views,  no  matter  how  divergent,  in  sound- 
proof, separated,  mental  rooms. 

During  the  19th  century,  for  well-defined  reasons, 
science,  philosophy  and  theology  came  into  such  an  en- 
tanglement that  the  province  and  task  of  each  is  not  clearly 
defined  even  unto  this  day.  Science  properly  declared  its 
right  to  think  and  to  think  through  to  a  system ;  henoe  it 
deal  with  matters  and  problems  usually  declared 
5 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

outside  its  right  and  sphere.  Philosophy,  because  it  deals 
with  a  first-cause,  naturally  tended  to  become  identified 
with  theology.  Theology,  which  calls  itself  the  queen  of 
sciences,  always  claims  the  right  to  deal  authoritatively 
with  both  primary  and  secondary  causes.  Referring  to 
this  entanglement,  Perry  writes :  *  "Apparently  compelled 
to  choose  between  science  and  religion,  it  (philosophy)  has 
itself  divided  into  two  parties:  those  who  have  followed 
science  for  the  sake  of  its  theoretical  motive,  and  those 
who  have  followed  religion  on  account  of  its  subject-mat- 
ter." The  result  is  the  two  opposing  philosophies — per- 
haps theologies — naturalism  and  idealism.  The  most  far- 
reaching  result,  however,  of  this  entanglement  is  the  crea- 
tion of  the  modern  science-theologian. 

The  popularity  of  this  science-theology,  called  natural- 
ism, increased  rapidly,  but  not  without  meeting  opposition. 
Soon  the  general  view  began  to  find  acceptance,  that  this 
system  of  natural  theology  negated  the  fundamental  veri- 
ties of  religion.  As  this  conviction  gained  strength  think- 
ing men  soon  discovered  that  the  separating  wall  between 
their  dual  mental-apartments  did  not  separate.  Then  fol- 
lowed suspicion  and  hostility  on  both  sides.  From  being 
friends  religion  and  science  abandoned  the  apartment  for 
houses  on  opposite  sides  of  the  street.  Science  arrogated 
to  herself  more  and  more  the  claim  to  mediate  all  true 
knowledge  to  the  world  of  mankind,  because  science  and 
reason  were  practically  identical.  From  the  opposite  side 
the  defenders  of  the  faith  and  even  some  men  of  science 
criticized  searchingly  this  claim  of  their  arrogant  neigh- 

i  "Present  Philosophical  Tendencies,"  p.  35. 


THE  ISSUE 

bor ;  but  when  in  a  more  conciliatory  mood  asked  for  a  re- 
turn to  the  former  status  quo.  This  was  refused. 

Then  occurred  the  new  turn  in  the  historic  conflict. 
This  change  came,  not  all  at  once  but  grew  nevertheless 
very  rapidly.  Philosophy  split  into  various  camps  and  the 
friendly  struggle  between  naturalism  and  idealism,  and  be- 
tween  idealism  and  idealism,  with  excursions  into  pragma- 
tism and  realism  ensued.  The  religious  leaders  split  into 
conservative  and  liberal  and  then  apparently  decided  to 
fight  out  a  waiting  battle.  With  these  antagonists  thus  en- 
gaged, science  calmly  and  quietly  proceeded  to  win  the  Age, 
with  the  result  that  this  is  the  "Age  of  Science"  and  to  a 
growing  extent  the  age  of  the  religion  of  science. 

The  story  of  this  new  turn  in  the  conflict  covers  the 
period  from  the  day  of  the  appearance  of  Haeckel's  "Rid- 
dle of  the  Universe"  to  the  present.  Every  scientific  move- 
ment, as  Weber  notes,  gives  rise  to  a  philosophic  move- 
ment ;  but  such  movements  do  not  always  give  rise  to  a  new 
religious  ism.  There  are  special  reasons,  however,  why 
the  latter  has  occurred  in  our  day. 

Haeckel,  despite  the  many  criticisms  hurled  at  his  head 
was  a  seer.  He  was  not  a  seer  in  the  biblical  sense  of  this 
word,  but  he  clearly  foresaw  the  coming  of  a  definite  re- 
ligion of  science.  To  him  it  was  evident,  as  it  must  be 
to  every  unbiased  thinker,  that  the  principles,  theories, 
canons,  beliefs,  metaphysics  and  dogmas  of  science  must 
inevitably  lead  to  this  conclusion  if  thinking  will  but  be 
logical.  He  also  was  conscious  of  the  influences  which 
were  pushing  some  scientists  more  and  more  into  meta- 
physics and  theology.  The  innate  character  of  the  theory 
of  evolution,  which  demanded  a  universal  system  and  a 

7 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

system  embracing  the  whole  universe  was  apparent  to  him. 

The  reasoning  which  led  up  to  this  inevitable  conclu- 
sion and  which  prompted  this  man  of  science  to  attempt 
to  formulate  a  religion  of  science  himself,  seems  well 
grounded.  The  conviction  had  seized  many  scientists, 
that  the  time  Lad  arrived,  when  they  should  advance  from 
the  menial  position  of  being  the  hewers  of  wood  and 
drawers  of  water  for  mankind,  into  the  more  exalted  posi- 
tion of  being  thinkers.  "To  most  minds  it  seems  impera- 
tive to  go  on  to  metaphysical  theory  and  it  is  better  to  do 
this  frankly  and  deliberately  than  unconsciously  and  at 
random",  is  the  plain  statement  of  a  scientific  thinker.1  In 
another  place  the  same  author  writes :  "That  the  pernicious 
fallacy  might  be  exposed  that  science  can  be  pruned  of  its 
theoretical  development  and  yet  continue  to  bear  fruit." 
This  conviction  carried  with  it  the  inevitable  conclusion 
that  the  development  of  theory  must  embrace  religion  and 
morality.  For  he  who  has  science  and  art  has  religion 
also. 

Whether  rightly  or  not  Haeckel  felt  that  there  was  a 
distinct  call  to  the  scientist  to  supply  a  present  religious 
aching  void  so  manifest  among  thinking  men.  Reason,  as 
he  thought  has  banished  mysticism  and  loosened  the  hold 
of  alleged  revelation  upon  thinking  men,  while  rational 
illumination  now  holds  the  place  the  discredited,  dominant 
doctrines  of  Christianity  formerly  held.  This  is  one  of  his 
usual  overstatements.  Professor  Hudson  states  what  he 
felt  more  truly:  "There  have  been  ages  of  moral  conflict, 
and  there  have  been  ages  of  moral  skepticism.  This  age 

i  Thompson,  "Introduction  to  Science,"  p.  165. 

8 


THE  ISSUE 

is  both.  Practically  men  are  resolutely  fighting  for  a 
multitude  of  ideals,  so  there  is  moral  conflict ;  theoretically, 
they  are  in  great  doubt,  and  there  is  moral  skepticism."  1 
Moral  confidence  may  have  waned ;  moral  faith  may  have 
turned  to  doubt;  but  there  is  one  faith  we  have  not  lost 
amid  the  wreck  of  things, — our  faith  in  modern  science. 
The  dominant  doctrines  of  Christianity  are  by  no  means 
discredited;  yet  there  is  at  present  a  manifest  looking  to- 
ward science  for  the  way  out  of  moral  conflict  and  skep- 
ticism. How  could  science  refuse  to  pay  heed  to  this  call  ? 

Our  present  faith  in  science  is  built  upon  tangible  facts. 
Empedocles  in  an  hour  of  inspiration  wrote:  "And  thou 
shalt  learn  all  the  drugs  that  are  the  defense  against  ills 
and  old  age,  since  for  thee  alone  shall  I  accomplish  all  this. 
Thou  shalt  arrest  the  violence  of  the  weariless  winds  that 
arise  and  sweep  the  earth  laying  waste  the  cornfields  with 
their  breath;  and  again  when  thou  so  desirest  thou  shalt 
cause  for  men  a  seasonable  drought  after  the  dark  rains; 
and  again  after  the  summer  drought  thou  shalt  produce  the 
rains  that  feed  the  trees  as  they  pour  down  from  the  sky. 
Thou  shalt  bring  back  from  Hades  the  life  of  a  dead  man." 
If  mankind  has  not  literally  accomplished  all  these  things, 
we  have  for  a  certainty  developed  the  spirit  which  makes 
the  impossible  the  unthinkable. 

Science  has  given  our  age  power  through  knowledge  so 
that  nature  has  lost  its  terrors.  There  has  ensued  a  new 
sense  of  proprietorship  in  the  world.  We  are  more  highly 
civilized  because  of  our  increased  mastery  of  the  physical 
world.  We  are  fired  with  the  spirit  of  conquest,  which  is 

i  Hudson,  "The  Truths  We  Live  By,"  p.  3. 

9 


THE  KELIGIOST  OF  SCIENCE 

giving  us  an  exalted  place  among  the  nations  of  the  world 
— conquest  of  the  secrets  of  nature  and  the  potentialities 
of  the  human  soul.  Science  has  given  us  a  great  galaxy  of 
brilliant  thinkers  and  writers.  Art,  literature,  education 
and  even  religion  in  large  part  have  adopted  the  scientific 
method  and  spirit.  When  therefore  science  speaks  on  mat- 
ters religious  and  moral  why  should  men  not  listen  ?  Why, 
too,  should  not  science  speak  out  ? 

But  is  science  equipped  to  take  upon  itself  this  task  of 
moral  and  religious  guidance?  The  affirmative  answer 
was  inevitable.  The  scientific  method  alone  can  attain 
unto  truth,  hence  those  trained  in  the  spirit  and  technique 
of  this  method  could  best  discover  and  reveal  religious  and 
moral  truth.  Theology  was  dealing  very  inadequately 
with  the  world  of  nature,  the  primal  source  of  truth.  "Un- 
less man  conceives  the  truth  concerning  the  material  facts 
of  the  universe  and  its  laws  he  cannot  formulate  a  correct 
theology."  Science  is  practically  identical  with  reason  and 
religious  faith  ought  to  be  rational.  Science  is  general, 
universal,  unbiased,  rational,  while  theology  is  local,  lim- 
ited, narrow  and  practical.  Orthodox  theologians  too  fre- 
quently display  an  inability  to  distinguish  between  the 
forms  of  religion  and  religion  itself.  They  fail  to  classify 
the  different  manifestations  of  religious  belief  and  life,  and 
different  religious  communities,  in  accordance  with  the 
stage  of  direction  of  their  development.  The  certainty  of 
the  deliverances  of  science  is  always  imposed  by  an  irre- 
sistible evidence,  hence  this  note  should  be  heard  when 
religion  is  the  subject-matter.  The  theory  of  evolution 
must  logically  embrace  religion  and  morality  within  its 
universal  system  and  it  has  a  persuasive  winsomeness. 

10 


THE  ISSUE 

The  deeper,  experimental  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  man's 
individuality,  his  social  nature,  his  relations  and  his  en- 
vironment should  yield  the  secret  desired  to  elevate  man- 
kind and  mark  progress.  Science  being  exact  thinking  al- 
ways induces  belief  in  the  finality  of  the  conclusion,  hence 
the  scientist  feels  he  is  better  equipped  to  mediate  re- 
ligious truth  than  the  philosopher  or  theologian  with  their 
traditional  mysteriousness.  Science  begins  with  origins 
hence  no  further  knowledge  is  accessible.  Many  of  the 
teachings  of  religion  are  manifestly  erroneous,  such  as  the 
doctrine  of  creation.  By  making  authoritative  the  story 
of  the  Flood  dogmatic,  ecclesiastical  authority  has  held 
back  the  study  of  fossils.  In  like  manner  truth  is  being 
hindered  in  other  ways.  Science  has  in  the  past  revised 
many  theological  teachings.  The  vocabulary  of  science, 
particularly  the  symbol  of  organism  made  the  journey  into 
the  field  of  religion  easy. 

To  these  reasons  was  added  the  one  carrying  the  most 
weight.  Tyndal  had  early  recognized  that,  if  the  universal- 
ity of  law  be  strictly  maintained  miracles  and  prayer  are 
impossible.  So  in  like  manner  others  foresaw  that  if  the 
inherent  implications  and  applications  of  the  laws,  princi- 
ples and  teachings  of  science  be  brought  out  into  the  open 
a  science-theology  must  ensue.  Herein,  therefore,  is  the 
equipment  and  the  vindication  of  the  right  of  science  "to 
extend  her  investigations  over  everything  human  and 
therefore,  over  so  important  and  mighty  a  manifestation 
of  man's  inmost  nature  as  religion." 

It  might  be  urged  at  this  point  that  a  valid  distinction 
is  being  overlooked,  the  science  of  religion  versus  a  re- 
ligion of  science.  There  is  a  real  distinction  here.  The 

11 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

science  of  religion  means  the  critical,  careful,  unbiased 
study  of  the  facts  about  religion,  its  expressions  in  life 
and  history  and  the  phenomenon  religion  itself.  But  this 
is  merely  a  bias  toward  a  certain  method  of  investigation, 
held  to  be  the  best,  and  should  be  the  method  followed  by 
every  investigator,  scientist  or  theologian.  In  this  manner 
the  facts  concerning  religion  may  be  assembled  and  sys- 
tematic thinking  undertaken.  The  religion  of  science  on 
the  other  hand  concerns  itself  with  the  metaphysics,  the 
beliefs,  the  laws,  the  principles  and  teachings  of  science 
and  the  science-theologian.  Moving  from  these  bases  the 
man  of  science  formulates  his  religious  beliefs  and  his 
moral  code.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  when  a  science  of 
religion  is  undertaken  the  line  of  procedure  is  not  the 
scientific  one  but  the  dogmatic.  The  concept  of  develop- 
ment and  a  certain  definition  of  religion  form  the  starting 
point  whence  a  religion  of  science  is  deduced. 

This  objection  is  answered,  however,  not  by  argument 
only  but  by  definite  fact.  Professor  Conklin  a  makes  it 
very  clear  that  the  religion  of  science  is  a  present  concrete 
fact.  He  brings  the  argument  of  this  work  to  a  close  with 
these  words:  "Can  this  religion  of  science  and  evolution 
be  incorporated  in  tlie  organized  religions  of  the  civilized 
world  ?"  This  religion  of  science — >and  evolution — he  has 
definitely  outlined.  It  now  exists.  What  is  to  be  done 
about  it? 

Thus  the  vision  of  Haeckel  has  become  a  concrete  reality. 
When  he  made  the  venture  at  definition  of  this  new  religion 
as  Truth,  Beauty,  Goodness,  he  declared  that  all  men  of 

i"Th«  Direction  of  Human  Evolution,"  Conklin,  p.  242. 

12 


THE  ISSUE 

science  down  in  their  hearts  believed  as  he  did,  and  if  they 
but  had  the  courage  they  would  follow  him  into  the  open. 
For  good  reasons  the  majority  of  scientists  refused  to  take 
this  course.  Professors  Crampton  and  Conklin  have  found 
the  courage. 

The  issue  then  to-day  between  religion  and  science  is  this 
concrete  religion  of  science.  The  fact,  however,  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  new  ism  does  not  necessarily  constitute  an 
issue.  We  live  in  a  real  democracy  and  every  man  may 
think  and  worship  "under  his  own  vine  and  fig  tree."  The 
issue  appears  in  the  relations  established  or  claimed.  The 
adherents  of  this  new  religion  make  rather  extravagant 
claims  for  it,  which  not  only  invite  but  demand  considera- 
tion. 

These  claims  are  that  this  religion  is  rational  whereas 
orthodoxy  is  based  on  emotion.  Intellectuality  is  not 
wholly  denied  to  traditional  religion  because  emotions  and 
desires  have  an  intellectual  component,  but  this  intellectual- 
ity is  not  reason.  The  latter  is  of  a  higher  order  and  falls 
wholly  within  the  domain  of  science.  This  science-religion 
also  gives  a  rational  solution  of  the  problem  of  evil.  It 
gives  a  more  qualitative  attitude  of  mind  toward  "the 
fundamental  problems  of  existence,  such  as  the  origin  and 
government  of  the  universe,  the  constitution  and  order  of 
nature,  the  origin  and  character  of  man  and  of  society, 
and  especially  the  mysteries  of  human  life  and  death,  of 
good  and  evil,  of  instincts,  emotions,  intelligence  and  con- 
sciousness, as  well  as  the  aspirations  and  ideals  of  indi- 
viduals and  of  society." 

It  is  further  claimed  that  supernaturalism  is  shown  to 
be  due  to  a  misunderstanding.  The  old  universe  of  chance 

13 


THE  KELIGION  OP  SCIENCE 

and  caprice  has  given  way  to  one  orderly,  stable  and  set- 
tled. The  errant  belief  in  miracles  and  in  the  complete- 
ness and  inerrancy  of  the  scriptures  is  corrected.  Depend- 
ence upon  tradition  gives  way  to  rational  knowledge.  The 
anthropomorphism  of  the  Bible  is  labeled  and  properly 
shelved  alongside  such  like  "ridiculous"  ideas.  A  more 
rational  and  sublimer  belief  in  God  and  creation  takes  the 
place  of  the  orthodox  ones.  The  doctrine  of  divine  im- 
manence supplants  the  ancient  transcendentalism.  A 
grander  view  of  man  may  now  prevail.  A  more  sane  and 
modified  view  of  teleology  is  now  to  hand.  In  short  the 
religion  of  evolution  (science)  is  a  religion  of  progress 
through  struggle  and  effort.  It  is  a  religion  of  service  and 
sacrifice  for  the  good  of  others,  the  real,  true  Christian- 
ity. 

Such  claims  as  these  immediately  issue  a  challenge  and 
constitute  an  issue.  But  what  precisely  is  this  issue? 
There  are  various  definitions  now  being  offered.  One 
makes  it  an  issue  between  naturalism  and  supernaturalism, 
but  this  seems  too  narrow  a  statement  since  there  is  much 
more  at  stake  than  our  attitude  toward  the  physical  earth 
or  nature.1  Another2  names  the  idol  of  the  scientific 
method,  but  the  proponents  of  the  new  religion  leave  this 
method  behind  and  adopt  the  rationalistic.  Another  sees 
the  issue  as  one  between  science-philosophy  and  a  truer 
philosophy  with  special  reference  to  the  concept  freedom.3 
The  question  as  to  whether  the  extreme  confidence  men 
have  in  science  to-day  is  justified  is  still  another  view.4 

1  Conklin. 

2  Hoernl£,  "Studies  in  Contemporary  Metaphysics." 
8  Boutrour. 

*Merz,  "Religion  and  Science." 

14 


THE  ISSUE 

Much  the  same  view  is  held  by  Hudson x  when  he  declares 
that  it  must  be  shown  to  our  generation  that  science  cannot 
deal  at  all  with  morality  and  religion.  The  scientific  doc- 
trine of  naturalism  is  the  storm  center  according  to  Balfour 
and  Ward.  The  necessity  of  showing  that  science  and 
religion  are  not  enemies  but  collaborators  is  the  view  of  my 
colleague  Professor  Patten. 

Two  quite  general  views  seem  to  be  widely  held.  The 
first  is  that  it  is  necessary  to  show  that  science  is  fallible 
and  productive  of  un-moralized  power  and  therefore  not 
qualified  to  take  the  position  of  leadership ;  the  second  is 
that  the  whole  system  that  bears  the  name  of  science  must 
be  rejected  in  one  lump.  The  latter  is  the  familiar  view, 
that  both  science  and  religion  have  the  right  to  treat  the 
universe  as  a  whole  but  the  fashion  of  the  treatment  in  it- 
self decides  the  issue.  The  former  gets  nowhere  because 
the  scientist  will  admit  even  more  shortcomings  than  his 
opponents  may  pile  up  against  him. 

There  may  not  be  a  better  way  of  defining  this  issue  than 
these  distinguished  thinkers  have  given,  but  it  may  perhaps 
be  stated  in  a  somewhat  different  fashion.  The  issue  is 
the  modern  religion  of  science.  The  concrete  fact  faces  us 
that  there  is  at  present  a  definite,  clearly  outlined  and 
rounded-out  religion  of  science.  This  new  ism  lays  claim 
to  being  superior  to  all  other  isms  of  the  day  and  by  its 
most  ardent  adherents  to  be  the  real  Christianity.  It  is  of- 
fered to  us  for  our  acceptance  and  edification.  The  de- 
mand of  the  hour  is  the  necessity  of  a  critical  examination 
and  evaluation  of  the  new  ism. 

i  "The  Truths  We  Live  By." 

15 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

Such  a  critical  examination  naturally  excludes  all  "bad 
blood,"  partisanship  and  bias.  Our  age  is  too  serious  and 
too  much  devoted  to  the  quest  of  truth  to  allow  trivialities 
a  place  of  any  prominence.  The  science-theologians  who 
support  this  new  religion  are  honest,  serious-minded  men. 
They  will  accept  criticism  in  the  spirit  with  which  it  is 
given.  The  criticism  and  evaluation  will  then  be,  not 
primarily  of  science  in  general,  nor  of  the  fallibility  and 
errors  of  scientists,  but  of  this  definite,  concrete  religion 
of  science.  A  concise  statement  of  this  new  religion  must 
now  be  made. 


16 


CHAPTER  TWO 

THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

MANY  difficulties  present  themselves  at  the  very  outset. 

It  is  frequently  claimed  that  the  religion  of  the  scientist 
is  not  different  from  the  religion  of  other  men.  This  is 
true  and  yet  not  true.  It  is  a  true  statement  when  uttered 
by  one  who  holds  his  science  tenets  as  science  and  his  re- 
ligious beliefs  as  religion,  and  believes  there  is  no  incon- 
sistency involved.  It  is  likewise  true  that  men  of  science 
are  not  as  a  rule  irreligious  or  differently  religious^  in  the 
sense  that  they  have  no  religion.  It  is  true  also  in  the 
sense  that  a  scientist  may  refuse  to  believe  some  of  the 
dogmas  and  doctrines  of  orthodox  Christianity  and  yet  be  a 
religious  man. 

There  is,  however,  difference  between  religions.  The 
early  Babylonian,  with  his  animistic  and  polytheistic  faith 
was  a  religious  man,  but  the  quality  of  his  religion  can 
hardly  stand  comparison  with  that  of  Christianity.  Like 
God  like  people,  is  a  truism.  What  a  man  believes  and 
worships  is  what  he  is.  A  religion  reveals  its  individuality 
and  peculiarities  by  its  inherent  truthfulness  and  in  its 
product.  So  there  is  a  difference  between  the  religion  of 
those  who  accept  the  religion  of  science  and  that  of  those 
who  belong  to  some  other  denomination  or  fold. 

Another  difficulty  arises  in  the  effort  to  maintain  a  right 
relation  between  theory  and  belief.  That  nature  is  uni- 
form in  her  actions  and  can  be  depended  upon  to  always 

17 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

reveal  this  uniformity  is  a  theory.  In  the  mind  of  the  lay- 
man this  is  an  actual  belief.  Many  of  our  science-theo- 
logians take  meticulous  care  to  affirm  that  science  con- 
siders this  law  a  theory,  but  on  the  next  page  the  theory 
becomes  a  sufficiently  legitimate  generalization  upon  which 
to  build  and  from  which  to  draw  conclusions.  In  fact  it 
has  become  a  belief.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  man 
conversant  with  the  theories  of  science  who  does  not  accept 
them  as  beliefs.  Moreover  those  who  to-day  believe  in 
science  do  not  always  know  all  the  theories. 

When,  therefore,  we  state  certain  beliefs  as  characteristic 
of  the  religion  of  science  there  is  no  fundamental  error. 
Professor  Perry  finds  that  in  general,  theories  and  beliefs 
have  the  same  fundamental  value,  since  both  are  forms  of 
knowledge,  and  it  is  knowledge  that  furnishes  the  illumina- 
tion and  guidance  of  all  conscious  action.  The  religion  of 
science  is  illumination  and  guidance,  and  it  would  be  a 
difficult  task  to  discern  in  the  use  of  the  theory  of  the 
eternal  conservation  of  matter  the  part  played  by  the  belief 
that  this  is  a  theory  or  by  the  belief  that  it  is  a  fact.  The 
majority,  however,  of  the  science-theologians  seem  to  have 
traveled  a  well-beaten  path.  They  begin  with  the  claim 
that  the  man  of  science  holds  his  theories  merely  as  agents 
to  attain  unte  further  knowledge,  then  they  slip  almost  in- 
sensibly into  declaring  they  hold  this  theory  as  proved  and 
therefore  it  is  a  belief,  and  finally  they  proceed  to  establish 
a  scientific  basis  for  the  belief  which  was  at  first  a  theory. 

There  is  an  objection *  made  to  the  use  of  the  term,  re- 
ligion of  science,  on  the  ground  that  such  is  impossible, 

i  Thompson,  p.  '92. 

18 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

since  science  and  religion  are  incommensurables.  The 
basis  of  this  objection  is  the  independent  nature  of  each  of 
these.  "Science  discovers  general  laws,  formulates  se- 
quences, and  describes  things  as  they  are  and  as  they  have 
been;  while  religion  is  on  thev  far  side  of  intellectual 
curiosity."  The  latter  transcends  the  ordinary  and  implies 
a  certain  exaltation  of  feeling.  Science  is  reason,  religion 
is  emotion,  therefore  they  do  not  move  in  the  same  plane 
or  speak  the  same  language. 

This  contention  is  another  of  those  gratuitous  problems 
created  by  definition.  If  science  and  religion  are  so  de- 
fined as  to  make  them  incommensurables,  then  for  the  prob- 
lem-maker they  will  be.  The  author,  however,  of  this  ob- 
jection immediately  denies  himself  and  repudiates  his 
definitions.  He  declares  first  that  the  growth  of  science 
influences  religion — the  wall  of  separation  grows  thin. 
Then  nature,  the  universal  mother  appeals  to  the  emotions 
— reason  and  religion  get  closer  together.  Finally  scienti- 
fic convictions  cannot  be  kept  unrelated  to  religious  con- 
victions— the  chasm  is  bridged. 

Still  another  difficulty  is  met  in  the  fact  that  the  learned 
doctors  do  not  always  agree.  This  fact  has  been  sufficiently 
aired  to  need  no  further  proof.  The  answers  of  the 
scientists  seem  usually  well  given.  It  would  be  surprising 
if  there  were  literal  agreement — it  would  be  worse  than 
surprising  because  it  would  reveal  the  form  of  the  religious 
close-corporation.  There  is,  however,  substantial  agree- 
ment in  fundamental  laws,  principles  and  canons.  More 
room  will  therefore  be  given  to  these  fundamentals  than 
to  the  teachings,  although  it  is  the  latter  which  figure  the 
more  prominently  in  the  popular  discussions. 

19 


THE  BELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

The  form  of  the  statement  of  the  religion,  here  given, 
which  is  borrowed  from  that  of  Church  Manuals,  Disci- 
plines or  Catechisms  may  not  be  considered  apropos;  but 
it  is  a  convenient  one — and  we  think  really  quite  fitting. 

Since  religion  is  both  external  and  internal  it  will  be 
convenient  to  follow  this  distinction,  taking  up  the  internal 
side  first.  Internally,  religion  is  the  consciousness  of  and 
response  to  the  Other  World  of  supernatural,  absolute 
values ;  or  anticipated  attainment  of  eternal  values ;  or  en- 
richment of  life  through  relationship  to  a  more-than-human 
environment.  The  external  manifestations  are  three-fold : 
beliefs,  creeds,  canons,  dogmas,  teaching,  theology  and 
usually  a  sacred  literature ;  ritual,  forms  of  worship,  insti- 
tutions ;  conduct  or  morality.  The  religion  under  discus- 
sion lacks  but  the  second  of  these  three.  The  reason  is 
that  it  is  mainly  an  intellectual  religion. 

A.     THE  INTERNAL  EXPRESSION 

The  basal  fact  is  that  the  scientist  worships  trutE.  His 
search  is' above  everything  else  for  truth.  Truth  is  the  very 
breath  he  breathes.  His  findings,  his  beliefs  must  there- 
fore be  truth.  He  is  the  willing,  loyal  servant  of  this 
master  before  whom  he  bows  down  as  to  one  greater  than 
himself.  As  science-theologian  he  feels  that  he  has  discov- 
ered the  truth  about  religion  and  thus  religious  truth.  Is 
he  not  therefore  religious  because  his  spirit  is  truth  and 
does  he  not  worship  that  which  is  the  core  of  religion? 
Then  as  a  worshiper  he  feels  the  missionary  call  to  spread 
his  truth  before  all  mankind. 

He  worships  also  Beauty  and  Goodness.  In  nature  lie 

20 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

•finds  these  great  objects  of  commanding  interest.  Right- 
ness  perhaps  is  a  better  term  for  him  to  use  than  goodness, 
but  the  meaning  is  fundamentally  the  same.  When  a  man 
really  sees  the  "cosmic  drift  of  things"  he  becomes  serious 
and  reverent  and  a  deep  emotion  visits  him, — an  esthetic 
or  religious  one.  Whoever  loves  the  True,  the  Beauti- 
ful and  the  Good  is  religious. 

He  worships  the  Eternal  in  the  quasi-personalized,  eter- 
nally-developing, civilized  world,  or  eternal  humanity. 
Helmholtz  well  expresses  this :  "As  the  highest  motive  in- 
fluencing my  work  .  .  .  was  the  thought  of  the  civilized 
world  as  a  constantly  developing  and  living  whole,  whose 
life,  in  comparison  with  that  of  the  individual  appears  as 
eternal.  In  the  service  of  this  eternal  humanity  my  con- 
tribution to  knowledge  .  .  .  appeared  in  the  light  of  a  holy 
service." 

He  attains  unto  a  oneness  with  cosmic  processes.  "I 
and  the  cosmic  processes  are  one." 

He  attains  unto  an  enrichment  of  life  through  rational 
relationship  to  a  more-than-human  environment.  The  man 
who  sees  clearly  the  workings  of  this  universe  will  be  opti- 
mistic and  elated. 

His  religion  is  personal.  Each  man  stands  or  falls  de- 
pendent upon  the  quality  of  his  ultimate  attitude  to  the 
universe,  and  his  attitude  toward  the  fundamental  prob- 
lems of  existence. 

Among  the  science-theologians  may  be  found  some  who 
profess  belief  in  God.  The  argument  is  advanced  that 
science  proper  does  not  deal  with  a  First  Cause,  hence  the 
scientist  can  believe  in  God  as  the  First  Cause.  Some, 
like  Bonney,  hold  their  science  and  religion  in  separate 

21 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

apartments,  hence  profess  themselves  sincere  believers. 
Others  define  this  fundamental  belief  as  an  emotion  and 
will  agree  that  if  you  have  the  emotion  you  May  have 
the  belief.  Others  define  God  as  immanent  in  the  natural 
world,  hence  profess  the  belief.  It  is  our  contention  that 
these  efforts  to  save  the  belief  in  God  not  only  do  not  ac- 
complish the  desired  result,  but,  further  than  this,  God 
does  not  logically  find  a  place  in  this  religion. 

B.     EXTERNAL  EXPRESSION 

I.  The  Religion  of  science  does  not  find  external  ex- 
pression in  an  organized  church,  in  ritualistic  practices  or 
in  any  institution.     The  devotee  of  this  faith  usually  ex- 
presses his  religious  life  outside  of  the  church. 

The  reasons  for  this  individualistic  temper  are  ap- 
parent. This  religion  is  mainly  intellectual  and  therefore 
expresses  itself  more  logically  in  beliefs  and  teachings.  It 
emphasizes  morality  which  needs  not  an  organized  institu- 
tion. Scientists  moreover  are  truthseekers  and  not  secta- 
rians. They  are  missionaries  of  Truth  and  the  best  work 
can  be  done  through  teaching  and  exposing  the  gospel  of 
science.  Truth,  beauty  and  goodness  are  best  known  and 
discovered  in  nature,  hence  the  best  place  to  worship  is  in 
the  great  Out-of-Doors.  Moreover,  a  universal  religion 
would  suffer  by  becoming  sectarian. 

For  these  reasons  the  distinction  is  clearly  made  to-day 
between  the  true  men  of  science  and  the  science-theo- 
logians. It  is  the  latter  only  who  ever  speak  of  a  religion 
of  science. 

II.  Conduct  or  Morality. 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

The  outflowing  of  the  inner  religious  thinking  will  be 
seen  in  a  character  true  and  worthy.  This  moral  charac- 
ter will  be  both  individual  and  social. 

The  all-controlling  regard  for  veracity  and  the  disci- 
plining in  precision  and  balance  ought  ipso  facto  produce 
a  truly  noble  character.  For  where  passion  joins  hands 
with  courageous  work  the  result  is  practically  certain  to 
be  worthy  character. 

The  scientific  mood  and  method  should  produce  a  bal- 
anced character.  The  fundamental  virtues  issuing  from 
this  temper  are  clearness,  precision,  impartiality,  caution, 
courage  and  cooperation.  These  are  fundamental  life  vir- 
tues. 

The  main  issue  of  moral  character  is  society  made  more 
moral.  Conversely  a  true,  moral,  social  order  can  appear, 
only  as  the  product  of  the  scientific  "veracity  of  thought 
and  action."  Men  must  be  moral  enough  to  shew  the 
truth,  "to  strip  oif  the  garment  of  makebelieve  by  which 
pious  hands  have  hidden  its  uglier  features." 

The  scientist  naturally  has  the  truest  conception  of 
moral  conduct  since  this  is  based  upon  rationality  and  the 
fundamental  natural  laws,  principles  and  truth.  It  is  an 
error  to  think  that  true  morality  is  grounded  in  a  cate- 
gorical imperative,  a  traditional  faith  or  an  inspired  au- 
thority. Duty  rests  upon  the  solid  basis  of  social  instinct 
— the  natural  ground. 

Moral  laws  are  therefore  natural  laws.  Nature  when 
properly  studied  reveals  the  real,  fundamental  principles 
for  moral  instruction  and  guidance.  There  are  therefore 
no  absolute  standards,  no  a  priori,  ideal,  ethical  principles 
or  conscience.  Whatever  public  opinion  requires  is  his- 

23 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

torically  moral  for  it.  The  Golden  Rule  is  true  because  it 
can  be  demonstrated  empirically.  Nature  reveals  the 
truth  that  moral  laws  are  developed  instincts  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  life. 

Righteousness  is  that  state  of  social  and  individual  re- 
lationship in  which  the  material  welfare  of  each  and  all  is 
best  promoted.  Service,  and  even  the  sacrifice  of  the  in- 
dividual for  the  good  of  the  species  or  humanity  is  the 
highest  conception  and  expression  of  a  right  action. 

Altruism  is  a  product  of  evolution  having  arisen  by  the 
road  of  energy,  the  nervous  system  and  speech,  and  it 
exists  to  serve  high,  natural,  social  ends  beyond  the  in- 
dividual. It  is  a  fiction  to  think  of  an  idealistic  urge 
fathered  in  the  "beyond  nature"  which  creates  through 
human  will  power  a  higher  moral  life.  Will  power  is,  in 
the  more  crass  explanations,  "the  movement  of  atoms  in 
the  brain,"  but  in  the  more  refined  it  is  freedom  within 
bounded  limits. 

The  Christian  care  for  the  weak  is  not  altogether  in  ac- 
cord with  the  ways  of  nature.  The  judgment  in  this  mat- 
ter needs  careful  scrutiny.  Eugenics  would  be  a  step  in 
the  right  direction.  It  is  moral  to  use  natural  facts  and 
laws  for  human  progress. 

Civilization  is  the  product  of  the  transmission  of  vari- 
ants and  constants  in  evolution.  It  is  error  to  think  of  it 
as  the  product  of  ideals,  visions  or  moral  conflict  arising 
out  of  religious  inspiration.  Reason  cannot  improve  civi- 
lization since  it  too  is  the  product  of  evolution,  unless  it  is 
seen  that  there  was  a  purpose  in  the  evolution  of  reason 
for  its  own  progressive  purposes.  Commiseration  with  the 

24 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

conditions  of  savagery  are  therefore  wasted  because  such 
conditions  are  perfectly  compatible  (adapted)  with  the 
mental  and  physical  development.  Perhaps  savagery  con- 
tains as  few,  proportionate  necessary  evils  as  does  our 
civilization. 

The  outstanding  moral  virtues  attendant  upon  this  re- 
ligion of  science  are  then:  truthfulness,  honesty,  courage, 
service,  the  sacrificial  spirit,  cooperation. 

III.  The  Theology,  Sacred  Bible,  Creeds,  Canons, 
Dogmas,  Teachings. 

1.     The  Sacred  Book  is  Nature. 

Nature  or  the  physical  and  material  universe  is  the 
fundamental  reality.  It  is  independent,  self-existent, 
eternal,  self-moving,  creative.  Nature  is  the  sum  of  all 
phenomena  and  the  relations  existing  between  or  among 
the  component  phenomena.  Nature  existed  prior  to  all 
present  developments,  including  man  and  consciousness. 
There  is  no  sense  in  which  we  create  the  world.  Nature 
will  exist  when  man  has  passed  and  the  hills  have  been 
removed.  Our  knowledge  is  of  phenomena,  the  properties 
of  individual  phenomena,  but  the  existence  behind  must 
be  assumed  else  science  and  thinking  are  impossible. 
Though  this  existence  is  assumed,  "given,"  yet  its  proper- 
ties are  mass,  weight,  extension,  gravitation  and  inertia. 
The  original  form  was  doubtless  "infinite  nebulae"  or 
"atoms,  each  consisting  of  a  spherical  nucleus  of  positive 
electrification  and  groups  of  corpuscles"  or  as  God-Sub- 
stance. 

Nature  has  four  dimensions:  length,  breadth,  depth, 
duration.  Her  main  qualities  are:  stability,  continuity, 

25 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

eternity  of  processes.  Natural  law  knows  "neither  vari- 
ableness nor  shadow  that  is  cast  by  turning."  Nature's 
revelations  are  eternal  truth. 

Nature  is  the  universal  mother  of  all  that  is.  From  her, 
by  natural  processes  has  come  all  that  is  and  will  be — in- 
cluding all  we  know,  religion  and  morality.  When  there- 
fore we  would  seek  inspired  truth  here  and  here  only  is  the 
source. 

Knowledge  gained  from  the  study  of  nature  is  inspired 
knowledge.  Nature  herself  gives  the  man  whom  she  has 
evolved  (created)  knowledge,  by  direct  awareness  or  imme- 
diacy. She  gives  to  man  a  certain  freedom  to  think  within 
determined  limits,  but  his  thinking  will  be  truth  only 
when  it  corresponds  to  her  laws  and  ways  of  doing.  Na- 
ture did  not  receive  this  knowledge  by  any  process  of  in- 
writing  or  of  being  written  upon  by  any  external  Power. 
She  is  self-revelatory.  Her  inspiration  is  not  a  delegated 
one  but  is  primary.  She  cannot  lie  because  she  herself  is 
the  Real  and  therefore  Truth.  She  does  not  and  needs  not 
to  appeal  to  any  outside  authority  for  verification  since 
she  is  Truth  and  the  verifier  of  all  that  is  true. 

The  revelation  from  inspired  nature  comes  to  man  pri- 
marily through  the  senses  and  not  by  any  a  priori  method. 
We  just  come  to  know.  Nature  when  she  evolved  (cre- 
ated) man  created  his  sense  organs  and  fitted  these  to 
receive  sensations  or  perceptions — knowledge.  Even 
knowledge  of  relations  is  given  directly.  We,  that  is 
consciousness,  do  not  supply  the  form  of  knowledge.  Gen- 
eral ideas  are  given  general.  Time  and  Space  are  given 
directly.  In  course  of  time  there  arises  the  ability  for 
experimentation  and  study  and  then  advanced  knowledge 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

ensues.  Advanced  knowledge  is  not  different  in  kind  but 
in  degree.  Sense-perceptions  and  reasoned  convictions  are 
fundamentally  one,  being  but  different  stages  in  the  proc- 
ess of  evolution.  When  we  predicate  the  existence  of 
something  which  must  be  the  cause  of  our  sensations  and 
then  call  this  something  Reality,  this  judgment  is  the  prod- 
uct of  nature,  hence  truth.  Thus  it  is  that  even  if  in  a 
roundabout  way,  yet  it  is  by  a  sure  process  that  nature  re- 
veals herself  to  man  as  fundamental  Reality.  Our  part  in 
the  knowing  process  is  by  observation  and  experiment  to 
expose  ourselves  to  nature  and  she  will  do  the  rest.  Then, 
to  the  properly  exposed  mind  will  be  revealed  such  truths 
as  the  uniformity  of  nature,  the  eternity  of  matter  and  the 
other  scientific  fundamentals. 

The  proof  of  this  inspiration  (though  of  course  none  is 
necessary)  is  found  in  the  fact  that  there  is  but  one  test 
of  truth — being  true  to  nature.  Scientific  laws,  being 
natural  laws  are  therefore  inspired.  If,  however,  any  of 
the  revealed  laws  were  ever  to  be  changed  this  would  not 
prove  their  falsity.  Such  a  change  could  only  come  about 
by  nature  revealing  some  new  phenomenon  which  the  law 
was  not  large  enough  to  contain  or  explain.  This  new 
phenomenon  would  then  be  absorbed  by  nature  into  a  new 
law,  one  nearer  to  final  truth.  There  can  thus  be  in  science 
no  real  error :  there  may  be  limited  revelation. 

2.     The  Canons. 

Matter  is  eternally  conserved. 

In  the  midst  of  its  mutability,  matter,  the  substance  of 
the  natural  universe,  is  eternally  constant  and  conserved. 
It  is  not  exactly  the  sum  of  the  composite  physical  objects 
we  know,  but  our  knowledge  is  of  that  of  which  they  par- 

27 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

take.  It  is  that  which  is  common  to  them  all.  Matter 
is  mutable  but  not  indestructible. 

Energy  is  eternally  conserved. 

The  total  amount  of  energy  will  remain  constant,  the 
potential  being  balanced  by  the  kinetic  and  vice  versa. 

The  world  of  nature  is  best  conceived  of  as  a  great 
mechanism — a  mechanical  organism. 

This  symbol  is  used  to  express  the  fact  that  the  universe 
is  a  more  or  less  unitary  whole  made  up  of  interconnected 
parts.  The  relations  between  these  parts  suffice  to  explain 
all  movements  and  excuses  any  aid  from  an  external 
agency.  Governance  and  movement  are  from  within,  the 
result  of  the  action  of  one  part  on  the  other.  The  different 
parts  of  nature  do  their  work,  not  by  any  choice  of  their 
own  or  because  they  are  seeking  to  realize  any  preconceived 
end  of  their  own  or  of  the  mechanism.  They  act  under 
the  determining  power  of  the  circumstances  of  the  moment. 
They  act  from  a  push  rather  than  a  pull.  Results  are  due 
to  no  rational  choice  but  "to  the  form  of  the  combination 
of  the  parts  and  their  adjustment  each  to  the  other." 

All  nature  is  under  the  Reign  of  Law. 

Natural  agents,  factors,  and  elements  possess  a  charac- 
teristically constant  way  of  behaving.  They  can  be  relied 
upon  to  act  in  these  ways  (under  proper  conditions)  both 
in  the  present  and  in  the  future.  Succinct  description  of 
fixed  forms  of  functioning  is  a  law. 

3.    The  Creeds. 

I  believe  in  the  uniformity  of  nature. 

Nature  is  absolutely  and  consistently  uniform  in  all 
her  activities  and  because  of  this,  whatsoever  is  observed  to 
occur  to-day  will  under  precisely  similar  conditions  occur 

28 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

again.  Due  to  this  fact  universal  knowledge  and  exact 
science  are  possible. 

I  believe  in  Keason  as  the  sole  source  of  true  knowledge. 
Eeason  unaided  by  anything  supernatural  can  attain  unto 
truth. 

I  believe  in  the  rationality  of  the  universe. 

Every  and  all  processes  of  nature  are  potentially  com- 
prehensible by  the  human  mind.  The  world  we  come  to 
know  is  an  orderly  one  and  so  fixed  in  its  types  of  proc- 
esses that  these  can  be  completely  and  accurately  described 
under  natural  laws  and  hence,  future  occurrences  can  be 
successfully  predicated  even  to  the  minutest  detail.  Thus 
science  and  reason  may  be  considered  interchangeable 
terms. 

I  believe  in  the  objective  reality  of  the  physical  world. 
The  objects  making  up  the  physical  world  may  be  treated 
as  independent  existences. 

I  believe  in  the  objective  reality  of  Time  and  Space. 
Since  all  material  things  have  extension  it  means  that  they 
exist  in  space.  To  treat  therefore  of  things  existing  in 
space  is  to  treat  space  as  though  it  too  has  objective  re- 
ality. 

Every  event  takes  place  in  time.  If  the  objects  of  these 
events  together  with  their  behavior  are  to  be  treated  as 
actual  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  treating  otherwise 
the  time  periods  in  which  the  behavior  occurs. 

I  believe  in  Evolution. 

The  present  is  the  legitimate  child  of  the  past  and  will 
be  the  legitimate  mother  of  the  future.  Science  thus  com- 
pletes itself  in  history. 

I  believe  in  the  scientific  method. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

This  is  the  only  method  of  attaining  unto  Truth. 

4.     The  Theology. 

A  rational  religion  is  the  highest  type. 

Religion  is  a  tremendous  force  in  human  life  because  its 
appeal  is  to  the  noblest  emotions  in  human  nature  and  the 
world  is  governed  more  by  emotion  than  by  thought.  The 
emotions  it  appeals  to  and  cultivates  are  the  love  of  truth, 
beauty  and  goodness.  But  there  are  forces  which  battle 
against  these  noble  emotions,  such  as  hate,  selfishness  and 
passion.  The  function  of  religion  is  to  give  mankind  re- 
lief from  these  "Fightings  within  and  fears  without,"  and 
thus  to  minister  to  human  comfort  and  happiness.  For  the 
mass  of  mankind  this  feeling  of  harmony,  this  inner  peace 
comes  only  through  religion;  but,  "The  most  intelligent 
types  of  men  may  find  it  in  science."  If  one  has  the  emo- 
tion which  is  religion,  well  and  good ;  but  if  he  has  science 
he  can  get  along  without  it.  Thus  science  may  become  re- 
ligion and  in  fact  the  truer  harmony  with  the  superhuman 
powers  and  processes  comes  through  science  or  reason. 
The  highest  type  of  religion  is  therefore  the  rational 
one. 

Religion  is  the  product  of  evolution  having  arisen  in 
and  developed  with  the  emotions.  The  emotion  which 
may  be  named  as  the  most  probable  one,  out  of  which  re- 
ligion emerged  is  fear.  The  evolution  of  "emotions  and 
religions"  has  been  a  slow  process  since  both  emotion  and 
religion  are  static.  The  evolution  is  therefore  more  marked 
in  the  direction  of  quality,  the  present  rational  type  being 
the  highest. 

This  refers  to  the  spirit  of  religion.  When  the  spirit 
works  towards  uniformity  of  belief  rather  than  of  aim  it 

30 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

remains  static.  When,  however,  such  an  aim  as  a  life  of 
service  characterizes  the  spirit  we  have  truer  religion — the 
religion  of  science. 

God  is  a  term  which  symbolizes  that  which  faith  finds 
beyond  where  science  ends.  He  is  not  the  absolute.  He 
does  not  properly  belong  to  scientific  investigation  or 
teachings  because  the  organs  of  science  are  observation, 
experiment  and  reason.  Science  therefore  finds  no  God, 
and,  without  speaking  irreverently  has  little  use  for  this 
symbol  or  hypothesis. 

However,  the  scientist  may  also  have  faith — follow  his 
emotions.  Since  science  does  not  deal  with  a  first  cause, 
the  scientist  is  free  to  believe  if  he  wishes. 

5.     Creation. 

The  doctrine  of  the  eternal  conservation  of  matter  logi- 
cally settles  the  question  of  creation.  That  which  is 
eternal  had  no  beginning.  The  beginning  of  the  beginning 
cannot  be  known.  The  claim  according  to  which  science 
finds  that  every  event  is  due  to  preexisting  natural  causes 
— the  chain  of  cause  and  effect  extending  back  ad  infinitum 
— also  excludes  any  further  discussion  concerning  the  cre- 
ation of  the  world  and  man. 

However,  some  science-theologians  hesitate  to  draw  these 
logical  conclusions  and  fall  back  on  the  illogical  statement 
that  the  trip  backwards  ad  infinitum  may  end  in  a  first 
cause  or  an  uncaused  cause. 

The  main  science  teaching  then  is  that  God  certainly 
did  not  create  this  world  out  of  nothing.  The  super- 
naturalistic  conception  of  God  and  his  creative  act  cannot 
be  accepted. 

Man  came  into  existence  in  the  course  of  evolution  by 

31 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

natural  processes  and  not  as  a  special  direct  creation.  The 
first  man  was  made  as  the  last  one  was  or  will  be.  Creation 
may  be  seen  each  moment  in  the  changes  of  progressive 
evolution. 

The  soul  is  the  moral  and  emotional  part  of  man's  na- 
ture as  contrasted  with  his  mind  or  intellect.  It  is  not 
an  independent  entity  of  immortal  worth,  something  which 
survives  death  and  is  immortal. 

Some  define  it  as  "an  abstract  generalization  gathered 
from  passing  mental  states." 

Man  is  a  higher  animal  of  the  order  of  primates,  closely 
related  to  the  chimpanzee  but  with  a  higher  degree  of 
mentality.  He  is  secondary  in  time  and  enduring  value 
to  nature.  He  is  organically  related  to  the  animal  world 
and  through  this  to  the  whole  physical  universe  with  which 
also  his  destiny  is  bound  up. 

Freedom  is  limited.  We  have  equal  power  at  any  given 
moment  to  do  one  thing  rather  than  another,  yet  this  free- 
dom is  limited  and  prescribed.  Those  who  hold  to  uni- 
versal causation  and  necessity  in  a  mechanical  universe 
find  our  thinking  we  are  free  an  illusion.  If  we  had  per- 
fect knowledge  we  could  predict  every  human  action  now 
and  in  the  future. 

6.  Immortality. 

-  There  is  an  immortality  or  survival  after  death  of  all 
bodily  elements.  This  with  the  perpetuation  of  the  race 
constitute  an  immortality  which  is  natural.  Nature  only 
is  immortal. 

7.  Evolution. 

Since  science  completes  itself  in  theory,  evolution  sums 
up  and  epitomizes  the  theology  or  teachings. 


THE  KELIGIOIST  OF  SCIENCE 

Evolution  teaches : 

That  man  has  not  been  recently  and  miraculously  cre- 
ated, nor  does  he  stand  apart  from  the  rest  of  nature  in 
solitary  grandeur.  Man,  body,  mind  and  the  "society  of 
man"  are  the  products  of  evolution — "from  Amoeba  to 
man." 

The  truth  of  what  mankind  shall  be. 

That  there  are  two  sorts  of  inheritance :  our  bodily  quali- 
ties and  mental  capacities — and  our  social  inheritance  of 
language,  property,  customs,  laws,  institutions. 

That  progress  is  "from  the  simplest  to  the  most  com- 
plex organisms."  Progress  has  come  to  an  end  in  the  in- 
dividual but  not  in  society. 

That  human  intellect  is  but  a  higher  form  of  that  which 
exists  in  all  organisms.  That  which  we  call  intelligence, 
reason,  will,  in  man  is  instinct,  emotion  or  associative 
memory  in  the  lower  animals. 

That  environment  plays  a  large  part  in  human  develop- 
ment. 

That  human  betterment  can  come  by  raising  the  stand- 
ards of  heredity,  of  education  and  of  social  ideals  rather 
than  standards  of  living.  * 

That  the  Christian  sentiment  which  works  toward  the 
preservation  of  the  less  fit  is  an  error. 

That  the  Christian  ideal  of  the  unlimited,  progressive 
development  of  man,  "till  we  see  Him  and  be  like  Him," 
is  an  error,  because  in  every  line  a  limit  is  sooner  or  later 
reached  beyond  which  it  is  not  possible  to  go.  Individual 
perfection  comes  in  other  than  individual  lines,  that  is, 
social.  It  is  probable  that  the  limits  of  intellectual  evolu- 

33 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

tion  have  been  reached  in  the  greatest  minds  of  the  race. 
"The  intellectual  evolution  of  the  individual  has  virtually 
come  to  an  end  but  the  intellectual  evolution  of  groups  of 
individuals  is  only  at  its  beginning."  It  is  only  the  race 
that  survives. 

That  cooperation  is  the  one  and  only  true  way  to  human 
advancement.  This  will  function  productively  when  we 
attain  unto  the  rational  organization  of  society. 

That  no  other  animal  greatly  superior  to  man  will  ever 
appear  on  this  planet. 

That  the  hope  of  mankind  lies  through  an  organized 
society.  Instincts  must  be  balanced  and  controlled  by 
reason. 

That  the  uncompromising  principles  and  teachings  of 
Christianity  are  erroneous  because  life  and  all  of  its  activi- 
ties consist  in  compromise. 

That  the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  with  its 
note  of  equality  and  individual  liberty  is  untrue  because 
nature  has  made  men  unequal  in  every  respect.  Equal 
freedom  for  all  men  to  become  "perfect  even  as  He  is  per- 
fect•'  is  impossible  because  of  the  law  of  organization. 
The  very  nature  of  organization  is  specialization  and  co- 
operation which  implies  inequalities  and  limitations. 
Organization  limits  individual  freedom  and  subordinates 
the  individual  to  society.  Lack  of  organization  spells  de- 
feat. 

That  the  doctrine  of  individual  salvation,  the  free  choice 
of  any  individual  of  an  end  of  life  conceived  of  as  eternal, 
leads  men  astray.  The  supreme  good  is  race  preservation 
and  evolution.  The  man  who  seeks  to  save  his  soul  cer- 
tainly will  lose  it.  Each  individual  has  but  one  true  choice 

34 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

in  life,  and  that  is  to  subordinate  his  personal  salvation  to 
that  of  race  preservation.  There  is  no  personal  immor- 
tality. 

That  the  problem  of  evil  can  be  solved.  The  solution 
is  not  the  Christian  one  of  overcoming  evil  with  good  until 
it  disappears.  The  answer  is  a  rational  religion  which  will 
establish  harmony  with  our  environment  and  thus  remove 
the  consciousness  of  conflict.  Struggle,  suffering,  death  is 
the  solution. 

That  religion  can  be  rational,  that  is,  scientific.  One 
can  have  a  faith  which  will  satisfy  the  reason  as  well  as 
the  emotions. 

That  a  man  of  science  can  believe  in  God. 

There  is  a  special  God  or  conception  of  God  given  by 
evolution — a  sublime  conception.  It  is  that  God  is  im- 
manent. 

That  the  idea  of  the  supernatural  is  due  to  a  misunder- 
standing. Nature  is  everything  that  is. 

That  the  mechanistic  interpretation  of  the  universe  has 
great  values. 

That  miracles,  such  as  those  recorded  in  the  Bible  are 
impossible  because  of  the  stability  of  natural  law. 

That  the  theory  of  the  inspiration  and  inerrancy  of  the 
Bible  is  false  because  of  its  dependence  upon  the  super- 
natural. 

That  God  did  not  preexist  and  at  a  definite  point  in 
time  create  this  physical  universe. 

That  evolution  is  not  atheistic. 

That  the  Christian  doctrine  of  Providence  is  false. 

Evolution  gives  the  world  a  grander  view  of  man.  He 
is  the  climax  of  the  vast  ages  of  evolution. 

35 


THE  KELIGIOST  OF  SCIENCE 

That  evolution  modifies  the  doctrine  of  Design  in  crea- 
tion and  in  the  world.  There  is  purpose  in  the  organic 
universe, — it  is  not  all  chance.  Evolution  leads  some- 
where. 

That  the  Fall  of  man  has  been  upwards  and  not  down. 
We  fall  when  we  know  the  better  and  do  the  worse. 

That  all  religious  and  moral  progress  is  through  struggle. 
There  is  no  possible  heaven  devoid  of  struggle.  The  hope 
of  mankind  "to  be  at  peace  forever"  is  a  dream.  Con- 
tinued existence  depends  upon  rational  struggle. 

That  the  doctrine  of  predetermined  salvation  which 
will  come  to  a  man  whether  he  struggles  or  not  is  false. 

That  salvation  by  faith  alone  is  an  impossibility — if  it 
be  faith  without  works. 

That  we  are  master  of  our  destiny  to  a  large  extent  on 
this  planet. 

That  the  religion  of  evolution  is  the  true  Christian  re- 
ligion because  it  teaches  sacrifice,  struggle,  service,  co- 
operation. Evolution  leads  to  a  higher  intellectual,  ethical 
and  spiritual  life. 

That  true  religion  deals  with  this  world  rather  than  the 
next.  It  seeks  to  build  here  the  City  of  God.  It  looks  for- 
ward to  ages  of  greater  justice  and  peace  and  altruism. 

That  the  goal  to  the  future  lies  along  the  way  of  im- 
proving the  ideals  of  society  and  by  breeding  a  better  race 
of  men. 


CHAPTER  THREE 

THE  CANONS MATTEB,  ENERGY,  MECHANISM 

THEEE  are  two  judgments  which  must  be  made  in  order 
to  fairly  evaluate  a  new  offering  such  as  this  new  religion. 
The  one  relates  to  values  per  se,  and  may  he  made  inde- 
pendent of  any  reference  to  the  foundations  upon  which 
the  object  or  belief  rests  or  to  the  method  followed  in 
reaching  the  conclusions.  Alchemists  in  the  Middle  Ages 
thought  they  had  a  mixture  which  would  prove  to  be  gold, 
but  it  turned  out  to  be  porcelain.  Porcelain,  however,  in- 
dependent of  its  chance  discovery  is  a  very  valuable  gift 
to  mankind.  This  judgment,  however,  has  certain  limi- 
tations. It  is  true  from  the  pragmatic  viewpoint  that  if 
something  is  presented  as  truth  which  does  not  make  a 
winning  appeal  to  our  judgment,  or,  if  worse  than  this, 
there  is  left  a  dubious  or  depressing  impression  upon  us, 
this  reaction  naturally  raises  a  serious  question  as  to  the 
truthfulness  of  the  truth.  Truth  should  elate  us  and  at 
least  win  some  deep  seated  favorable  reaction.  However, 
this  reaction  for  or  against  does  not  absolutely  settle  the 
matter  at  once. 

The  other  judgment  relates  to  the  foundations  or  reasons 
which  support  the  conclusions  and  the  validity  of  the 
method  used.  If  these  supports  cannot  stand  the  test  of 
critical  examination  and  evaluation,  then  the  whole  build- 
ing fall*  to  the  ground  or  it  must  be  re-founded.  And 

37 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

even  if  the  supports  are  found  sound  and  secure  the  critical 
evaluating  is  a  necessary  and  important  task. 

As  stated  earlier  there  are  practically  two  types  to-day 
calling  themselves  scientists:  the  "pure"  scientist  and 
the  variant.  This  latter  is  the  man  of  science  who  wishes 
to  act  in  the  dual  capacity  of  scientist  and  theologian.  He 
thinks  that  the  scientist  has  the  right  to  enter  other  fields, 
he  is  prepared  to  do  so,  and  that  science  is  the  only  hope  for 
the  world  to-day.  He  further  feels  that  necessity  is  laid 
upon  him  to  do  this  special  work  of  revealing  to  mankind 
the  truth  science  can  give. 

The  one  particular  form  this  "call"  has  taken  is  the  task 
of  drawing  the  inferences  implicit  in  the  conclusions  of 
science.  The  distinction  between  theory  and  belief  is 
neglected.  These  conclusions  and  inferences  by  their  own 
inherent  character  and  universality  extend  to  and  embrace 
religion  and  morality.  The  "pure"  scientist  feels  no 
such  call,  but  to  some  of  these  intellectualists  has  come  the 
self -conviction :  Woe!  is  me,  if  I  preach  not  as  well  as 
conduct  scientific  research. 

The  question  then  before  us  is :  What  is  the  character  of 
these  conclusions  of  science  out  of  which  such  far-reaching 
inferences  come  ?  What  is  the  validity  of  the  inferences  ? 

The  law  of  the  eternal  conservation  of  matter  is  one  of 
the  fundamental  conclusions.  To  the  "pure"  scientist  this 
is  a  workable  hypothesis  only,  but  to  the  science-theologian 
it  is  an  unquestioned  belief.  The  latter  is  sometimes  out- 
and-out  dogmatic  and  asserts  that  there  can  be  no  doubt 
entertained  concerning  the  finality  of  the  truth  of  the  law, 
while  at  other  times  he  modestly  asserts  his  private  belief 
concerning  this  finality  and  disclaims  any  intention  of  try- 

38 


THE  CANONS 

ing  to  force  it  upon  others.  But  he  then  forgets  his 
modesty  and  upon  a  hypothesis  desired  into  a  belief  he 
rears  a  most  astounding  structure  of  religious  thinking 
and  creates  models  for  religious  living. 

What  now  is  this  so-called  law  or  hypothesis  ?  It  is  the 
theory  that  in  the  universe  there  is  constant  change,  but 
there  is  no  diminution  or  increase  either  in  mass  or  quan- 
tity. The  quantity  of  matter  is  eternally  conserved.  Mat- 
ter and  space  are  identical  as  to  continuity  but  "matter  as 
a  form  of  indivisible  and  discrete  atoms  is  different  in 
kind  from  space."  Carefully  conducted  experiments 
within  controlled  limits,  such  as  the  burning  of  a  substance 
inspired  this  generalization.  Then  it  became  a  belief. 

Now  there  is  no  disposition  to  question  the  accuracy  of 
the  experiment  of  the  physicist  upon  which  this  generali- 
zation is  based.  There  are,  however,  some  observations 
which  can  legitimately  be  made. 

First  of  all  the  experiment  is  an  empirical  one  and 
therefore  in  the  nature  of  the  cage  can  never  inspire  any 
conclusion  which  may  be  termed  general  or  absolute.  In 
all  such  experimentation  results  are  approximate  only  and 
can  never  be  anything  else.  For  there  is  nothing  absolute 
either  in  weighing,  measuring  or  judging.  Measured  re- 
sults are  always  relative.  An  empirical  standard  must  be 
arbitrarily  determined  upon  and  judgments  made  as 
nearly  or  approximately  accurate  as  empirical  judgments 
can  be.  Nature  furnishes  no  units  that  are  constant.  One 
ten-millionth  of  variation  could  disprove  the  whole  cer- 
tainty of  knowledge.  Eepetition  of  phenomena  must  not 
be  confused  with  law. 

Then  only  a  very  limited  number  of  experiments  can 

39 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

be  made  where  the  quantity  before  the  change  can  be  ac- 
curately determined,  and  then  the  identical  quantity  iden- 
tified and  weighed  quantitatively  after  the  change.  It  is 
no  observation  of  a  man  "not  in  his  senses"  to  note  that  the, 
universe  never  can  be  measured  or  weighed.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  drive  home  the  truth,  that  neither  the  universe  nor 
even  the  smallest  fraction  thereof  can  ever  be  reduced  to 
experimentation  to  keep  some  thinkers  within  the  bounds 
of  sense  when  they  attempt  to  base  stupendous  conclu- 
sions upon  insufficient  data. 

The  experiment  upon  which  this  huge  generalization  is 
based  is  always  an  ideal  one.  The  conditions  are  con- 
trolled. Change  is  supposedly  arrested  for  the  time  being 
until  it  is  initiated  and  concluded  in  the  controlled  ex- 
periment. No  experiment  has  ever  been  made,  in  situ, 
and  never  can  be,  whereby  the  quantity  is  measured  and 
weighed,  the  identity  as  to  quantity  preserved  through  the 
change  and  the  exact  quantity  again  experimentally  deter- 
mined. A  bit  of  phosphorus  thrown  on  water  disappears. 
Who  would  ever  think  of  this  law  of  eternal  conservation 
being  experimentally  used  or  illustrated  in  such  a  case? 
Only  a  very  few,  an  infinitesimal  number  of  such  empiri- 
cal experiments  can  ever  be  even  ideal  ones.  To  follow 
with  quantitative  measurement  the  passage  of  a  vegetable 
through  the  process  of  decay  would  be  surely  an  ideal 
experiment.  To  conduct  an  ideal  experiment  moreover  is, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  disqualify  the  application  of 
the  conclusion  to  free  nature. 

Then  again  the  central  fact  of  change  is  not  given  ade- 
quate consideration.  This  fact  makes  all  physical  experi- 
mentation not  only  approximate  but  exceedingly  tentative. 

40 


THE  CANONS 

No  man  can  control  constant  change — he  himself  least  of 
all.  Here  is  where  abstraction  even  for  scientific  purposes 
is  absolutely  impossible.  This  is  why  the  true  scientist  is 
always  very  humble  in  his  use  of  theories  and  generaliza- 
tions. 

It  must  be  noted  also,  that  there  are  scientists  to-day  who 
say  that  degeneracy  actually  disproves  this  theory  of  con- 
servation. It  is  not  surprising  that  such  a  conclusion 
would  be  reached ;  for  is  there  any  experimental  proof  that 
when  a  material  .substance  passes  from  sense  knowledge  by 
the  way  of  acids  or  gases  it  is  not  gone  for  good?  There 
is  no  proof — only  a  belief. 

There  is  further  indirect  proof  that  scientific  thinkers 
themselves  are  conscious  of  these  facts.  Since  Descartes' 
time,  particularly,  this  matter  which  is  conserved  is  not 
the  physical  phenomena  known  to  the  senses  but  either  the 
mass  of  atoms  or  a  substance-  behind  the  phenomena. 
Scientific,  hypothetical  theory  has  followed  theory,  thei 
subject-matter  ranging  from,  inertia  to  ether.  Hence  that 
which  abides  is  not  the  matter  of  physics  but  of  meta- 
physics. Professor  More  notes  that  "a  metaphysical  hy- 
pothesis (such  as  matter  really  is)  valuable  solely  for  its 
utility  is  always  dangerous;  for  by  constant  use  we  tend 
inevitably  to  give  an  objective  reality  to  things  which  in 
the  beginning  we  knew  to  exist  only  in  oui*  own  minds." 

This  is  just  the  tendency  noted  in  the  promoters  of  the 
religion  of  science.  The  difference  between  hypothesis 
and  fact,  between  metaphysics  and  physics,  between  the 
creations  of  nature  and  the  creations  of  the  imagination  is 
not  only  slurred  over  but  forgotten.  The  fact  is,  that  since 
the  metaphysical  matter  or  substance,  "the  existence  be- 

41 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

hind  the  phenomena"  is  the  real,  then  the  existence  of 
sensible  bodies  becomes  the  unreal.  This  virtually  denies 
the  validity  of  the  experiments  of  the  physicists  upon 
which  presumably  the  law  is  based.  It  makes  the  law  of 
conservation  in  reality  a  faith,  for  no  scientific  experiment 
can  ever  reach  this  reality  which  is  supposed  to  be  eternal. 
Is  this  not  the  desire  or  will  to  believe  ? 

Then  further  still,  since  there  naturally  arises  suspicion 
concerning  the  validity  of  this  faith,  this  whole  unseen 
but  presupposed  reality  is  conceived  of  as  a  mechanical 
system  that  can  be  mathematically  orientated.  The  basis 
of  the  faith  then  resolves  itself  into  the  certainty  of  mathe- 
matics. This  is  surely  getting  a  long  ways  from  sensible 
phenomena. 

What  then  is  the  certainty  of  this  law  of  conservation? 
But,  specially,  what  is  the  value  of  the  conclusion,  when 
used  illegally  as  a  fact,  from  which  inferences  are  drawn 
concerning  our  conception  of  and  our  relation  to  God? 
For  the  inference  is  logical,  that  if  matter,  which  is  used 
by  jugglery  in  the  two  senses  of  objective  phenomena  and 
metaphysical  substance  is  eternal,  then  there  cannot  be  two 
eternals  or  absolutes  in  one  universe.  The  absolute  God 
must  disappear  and  in  his  place  some  other  explanation  be 
fabricated. 

The  value  of  the  conclusion  for  the  pure  scientist  is 
manifest.  Within  the  limits  of  his  field,  where  the  experi- 
ment is  an  ideal  one  and  all  other  factors  are  neglected  he 
may  experiment  and  make  use  of  theories.  But  as  a  con- 
clusion whence  inferences  may  be  drawn  the  law  of  the 
conservation  of  matter  cannot  fairly,  scientifically  or  ra- 
tionally be  used. 

42 


THE  CANONS 

The  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy  is  another  of  the 
fruitful  conclusions  whence  items  of  theology  are  inferred. 
Historically  the  idea  of  energy  arose  out  of  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  observed  fact  of  change.  It  is  the  answer  to 
the  question  of,  who  or  what  is  the  efficient  agent  producing 
the  observed  change.  Observations  made  in  the  case  of 
coal,  for  example,  show  an  energy  with  the  capacity  to 
produce  certain  effects.  It  is  also  observed  that  there  are 
two  kinds  of  energy :  kinetic  or  moving  and  potential  or  re- 
served. Upon  such  observations  then  has  been  built  up  this 
theory  of  the  conservation  of  energy  which  is  that  "the 
total  amount  of  energy  will  remain  constant,  the  potential 
energy  lost  being  balanced  by  the  kinetic  energy  developed, 
and  vice  versa/'  This  law  like  all  others  when  stated  by 
the  pure  scientist  means  that  this  is  probably  true  and  will 
hold  within  any  "closed  dynamic  system,"  the  universe  as 
a  whole,  could  it  be  compassed,  being  the  ideal  one. 

But  a  change  occurs  when  the  science-theologian  comes 
to  use  the  law.  Limitations  are  lost  sight  of  and  the  meta- 
physical character  of  the  theory  is  confused  with  the  ex- 
perimental. It  is  a  conclusion  ready  for  use — at  least  it 
is  a  sufficiently  legal  generalization.  Thereupon  is  then 
built  theological  beliefs  concerning  the  Supreme  Power  or 
moving  Force  in  the  universe. 

It  must  be  very  evident  at  once  that  this  procedure  lacks 
the  main  quality  it  ought  to  possess,  which  is  rationality. 
There  is  nothing  irrational  in  the  use  of  the  theory  by  the 
pure  scientist,  because  it  is  perfectly  legal,  when  there  is 
no  definite  evidence  either  way,  for  the  imagination  to 
frame  such  a  theory.  But  to  go  beyond  this  is  surely 
stretching  the  ordinary  meaning  of  rationality. 

43 


THE  EELIGIO1ST  OF  SCIENCE 

For  the  theory  never  has  been  proved,  it  never  can  be, 
and  every  scientist  knows  full  well  that  his  evidence  at  best 
merely  forms  a  reasonable  basis  for  a  theory.  No  one 
can  demonstrate — in  fact  such  is  an  absolute  impossibility 
—that  no  energy  is  ever  lost.  The  whole  idea  moreover  is 
metaphysical  and  not  experimental,  hence  no  certainty  for 
science.  It  has  been  further  pointed  out  that  the  concep- 
tion of  the  universe  as  a  whole,  that  is,  as  a  "complete, 
self  contained,  externally  unaffected,  physical  unit"  is  a 
biased  and  unworkable  assumption.  To  use  this  assump- 
tion is  to  argue  in  a  circle. 

There  is  a  new  phenomenon  now  which  seems  from  the 
side  of  science  itself  to  disprove  the  law.  It  is,  that  in 
radio-activity  there  seem  to  be  cases  of  actual  degeneration 
of  matter,  cases  in  which  part  of  the  material  substance 
passes  off  in  the  form  of  energy  and  ceases  to  be  matter. 
Cooley  then  concludes,  "If  such  is  actually  the  case,  the 
total  amount  of  matter  has  been  lessened  and  the  total 
amount  of  energy  increased,  and  neither  matter  nor  energy 
is  rigidly  conserved."  Such  a  fact  as  this  drives  the  scien- 
tific theorist  into  such  claims  as  that  matter  and  energy 
are  one.  If  this  be  true,  then  the  claim  that  matter  is  con- 
served is  still  further  weakened. 

Other  considerations  add  weight  to  this  judgment  of 
irrationality.  Is  not  the  backbone  of  the  whole  law  the 
belief  that  this  universe  is  uncreated  and  is  eternal?  Is 
this  not  the  real  reason  for  valuing  and  using  the  conclu- 
sion? What  relation  is  there  between  energy  and  action 
on  one  hand  and  energy  and  a  moving  Power,  who  might 
be  personal,  on  the  other  ?  What  right  has  any  one  to  prac- 
tically identify  physical  energy  with  the  creating  and  sus- 

44 


THE  CANONS 

taining  power  of  a  supreme  Being  or  this  Being  himself  ? 
Is  it  not  that  just  here  men  make  the  choice  between  a 
faith  in  nature  and  in  abstract  continuity  and  on  the  other 
hand  faith  in  a  personal,  omnipotent  God?  The  only 
mover,  we  know  of  from  experience,  with  capacity  for  pro- 
ducing change  is  ourselves,  that  is,  a  human  one.  On  the 
basis  of  this  fact  the  inference  is  a  rational  one  which  calls 
for  faith  in  the  Supreme  Mover.  For  if  inertia  be  the  real 
stuff  of  the  universe  then  to  speak  of  this  as  being  endowed 
both  with  its  own  character  and  the  opposite,  action,  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms.  To  speak  of  matter  and  energy 
then  as  really  one  is  to  make  confusion  worse  confounded. 

This  law  then  has  much  less  to  commend  itself  as  a  con- 
clusion approaching  fact  than  the  conservation  of  matter. 
What  a  shadowy  foundation  upon  which  to  essay  teaching 
concerning  the  Prime  Mover  in  the  universe!  What  an 
excellent  illustration  of  the  personification  of  an  abstrac- 
tion !  And  then  it  is  treated  as  a  fact  whence  inferences 
may  be  drawn ! 

When  with  some  impatience  the  reply  is  made  that 
every  one  in  his  senses  knows  these  things,  the  answer  must 
be  again  returned,  that  if  they  are  known,  then  why  is  not 
the  knowledge  honored  ?  Why  go  ahead  and  use  such  meta- 
physical theories  as  even  approximate  facts  ?  Why  assume 
the  fact  and  then  create  a  theory  of  evolution  wherein  the 
Prime  Mover  or  God  becomes  a  secondary,  evolved  object 
of  the  emotions  ?  It  should  be  definitely  stated  that  since 
this  all-comprehensive  theory  demands  that  these  two  laws 
be  facts,  the  devotees  of  the  theory  are  using  them  as  facts. 

,The  third  conclusion  which  serves  as  a  foundation  for 

45 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

our  scientific  thinkers  is  the  mechanical  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse. The  use  of  this  assumption  has  been  on  the  increase 
since  Huxley  made  serious  use  of  the  mechanical  analogy. 
The  theory,  as  defined  in  science,  says  that  nature  is  a 
"more  or  less  unitary  whole  made  up  of  interconnected 
parts,  a  whole  in  which  all  the  movements  are  determined 
and  explainable  by  relations  between  the  parts,  not  through 
some  outside  agency."  Explicitly  stated,  it  says  that  na- 
ture or  the  physical  universe  is  governed  from  within; 
motion  comes  from  the  action  of  one  part  upon  another; 
the  parts  work  together  without  any  choice  on  their  part 
of  the  ends  served  by  the  mechanism  as  a  whole ;  and  each 
part  does  what  its  nature  under  the  circumstances  leads  it 
to  do — automatic  action.  The  blood  circulates,  the 
stomach  digests,  the  gas  explodes,  not  under  the  direction 
of  some  intelligent  agent  but  each  organ  or  part  of  the  ma- 
chine performs  its  part  as  do  likewise  the  several  parts  in 
unity.  In  the  case  of  the  human  body  it  is  chemical  action 
and  not  personal  direction  which  initiates  and  carries 
through  the  natural  processes. 

To  the  physicist  this  analogy  is  just  what  it  is,  an  appli- 
cation to  the  physical  world  of  likeness  to  a  product  of 
human  hands.  It  is  useful  when  not  made  to  go  on  all 
fours.  Since  all  the  experiments  made  are  ideal  and  con- 
trolled ones,  the  tracing  of  cause  and  effect  may  be  me- 
chanically and  in  abstraction  described.  But  to  the  meta- 
physical scientist  the  limitations  again  are  lost  sight  of. 
Proceeding  from  the  basis  of  belief  in  the  conservation  of 
matter  and  energy — both  metaphysical  imaginations — the 
thinking  process  leads  logically  to  the  literal  and  complete 
application  of  the  mechanical  analogy.  The  main  ideas 

46 


THE  CANONS 

associated  with  matter  and  energy,  such  as  uniform  activ- 
ity, continuity,  interaction,  self-adjustment  and  causation 
can  then  be  retained  and  brought  more  into  prominence 
through  the  application  of  this  analogy  to  the  physical  uni- 
verse. This  new  relation,  however,  of  matter,  energy, 
mechanism,  soon  passes  from  theory  and  analogy  into  belief 
and  fact. 

Then  occurs  the  further  step,  with  which  we  are  now 
familiar,  when  we  observe  the  ideas  and  theories  of  the 
pure  scientist  being  used  by  the  science-theologian.  To  the 
former  cause  and  causation  are  thought  of  in  relation  to 
mechanism.  It  is  mechanical  causation,  the  concrete  se- 
quener  and  organic  proximity  of  cause  and  effect.  If  a 
tree  falls  there  is  an  immediate  interacting  cause  equal  to 
the  effect.  Hence  the  modern  attitude  even  in  matters 
social  and  moral  to  seek  for  the  tangible,  mechanically  re- 
lated cause.  But  when  true  to  his  thinking  the  scientist 
never  confuses  this  mechanical  with  personal  causation. 
This  opportunity  is  left  to  the  science-theologian. 

Crampton  declares:  "Whatever  definition  we  may  em- 
ploy for  a  machine  or  an  engine,  we  cannot  exclude  the 
living  organism  from  its  scope.  .  .  .  Our  analysis  re- 
veals the  living  creature  in  an  entirely  new  light,  not  only 
as  a  machinelike  structure  .  .  .  but  .  .  .  structure  and 
function  are  inseparable.  ...  A  living  individual  is  a 
mechanism.  ...  As  far  as  the  evidence  goes  it  tells 
strongly  and  invariably  in  favor  of  the  mechanistic  inter- 
pretation." *  So  Conklin :  "Science  reveals  nature  as  a  vast 
'mechanism."  Thus  the  living  organism,  including  the 

i"The  Doctrine  of  Evolution,"  pp.  14,  20,  27,  30. 

47 


THE  KELIGIOST  OF  SCIENCE 

living  personality  is  engulfed  within  the  mechanism.  The 
fact  that  we  act,  that  we  act  from  motives,  and  shape  our 
acts  by  our  own  idea  of  the  end  sought,  is  doubtless  self- 
deception  as  far  as  any  free  action  is  concerned.  This 
reasoning  would  institute  an  inquiry  into  environmental, 
chemical  and  inherited  causes,  and  usually  ends  with  the 
feeling  that  such  have  been  found. 

In  anticipation  of  a  critical  examination  of  this  line  of 
thinking  it  has  been  urged  that  of  course  we  have  not  yet 
full  knowledge,  so  the  theory  as  completed  cannot  be  criti- 
cized ;  but  as  far  as  investigation  has  gone  this  interpreta- 
tion of  nature  including  man  as  a  mechanism  or  mechanical 
organism  works. 

As  far  as  the  analogy  may  be  applied  is  the  pith  of  the 
whole  matter.  It  must  be  remembered  that  this  view  or 
knowledge  was  not  given  direct  by  nature  but  is  an  analogy 
applied  to  the  physical  universe.  The  method  employed 
in  the  thinking  is  what  is  well  known  in  religious  studies 
as  the  prooftext.  The  conclusion  that  nature  is  a  mechan- 
ism is  assumed  and  then  excursions  are  made  into  nature 
for  the  proofs.  The  proof  naturally  cannot  be  secured  by 
the  experimental  method,  because  all  that  is  observed,  or 
even  demonstrated  by  experiment  is  contiguity  and  not 
causation.  By  carefully  prepared  observations  and  experi- 
ments certain  sequences  can  be  noted ;  but  the  jump  from 
this  observation  to  the  statement  that  causation  is  mechan- 
ical or  at  least  practically  so  is  a  tremendous  leap.  It  is 
the  leap  from  a  description,  applicable  to  a  few  individual 
cases  to  application  to  the  whole  universe.  That  there  is 
a  mechanical  phase  of  the  universe  physics  makes  good 
use  of,  and  by  so  doing  has  put  tools  of  inestimable  value 

48 


THE  CANONS 

into  the  hands  of  men.  But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  the 
universe. 

Since  there  are  those  who,  while  professing  knowledge 
of  the  limitations  both  of  the  theory  and  of  knowledge  in 
general,  yet  persist  in  ignoring  the  weight  of  these  limita- 
tions, and  draw  portentious  inferences  from  facts,  far  be- 
yond "as  far  as  they  ought  to  go,"  it  is  necessary  to  point 
out  some  facts  relative  to  the  analogy  between  the  universe 
and  a  machine. 

A  machine  is  never  alive  in  any  legitimate  use  of  this 
term.  Motion  is  not  necessarily  life;  it  is  only  life  that 
can  produce  motion.  To  speak  of  a  mechanical  organism 
is  a  flat  contradiction  in  terms.  In  a  machine  the  parts 
act  and  react  only  when  in  actual  contact  and  in  right  rela- 
tions. The  analogy  between  the  human  body  and  an  en- 
gine may  bring  out  many  likenesses  but  the  stomach  does 
not  digest  food  in  the  field — at  a  distance.  The  food  is 
introduced  into  it.  In  a  machine  a  gap  means  the  end  of 
its  working.  A  machine  is  built,  assembled,  set  in  order 
and  it  works  just  as  long  as  it  is  forced  to  from  without. 
It  is  not  self-starting,  self-propelling  or  self-sustaining.  It 
wears  out  and  needs  constant  care  and  attention  with  fre- 
quent repair.  The  body  on  a  car  is  no  part  of  the  mechan- 
ism yet  a  valuable  part  of  the  whole.  To  get  a  machine 
into  action  there  must  be  established  and  maintained  a 
definite  sequence  of  actions  all  working  towards  the  one 
end.  A  machine  obeys  the  will  of  the  builder  or  manipu- 
lator and  does  nothing  of  its  own  accord  or  with  a  motive. 
The  ship's  mechanism  will  run  it  into  an  iceberg  or  to 
Liverpool — it  will  run  on  irrespective  of  the  end  until  it 
stops.  Uniformity  of  action  in  a  machine  depends  wholly 

49 


THE  EELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

upon  the  skill  of  the  mechanician.  A  machine  merely 
running  is  nothing  but  waste.  It  can  be  reversed  but  not 
so  with  life.  There  is  no  backward  turning  to  life.  A 
machine  exists  only  so  long  as  it  functions  in  achieving  the 
end  for  which  it  was  designed.  How  many  of  these  points 
can  be  applied  by  analogy  to  the  physical  world,  to  life  or 
the  universe  as  a  whole  ? 

When  the  main  facts  are  overlooked  and  the  assertion 
is  made  that  nature  or  the  physical  universe  is  best  con- 
ceived of  as  a  mechanism,  worse  evils  follow  than  misap- 
plied analogy.  Such  a  theory  makes  the  mind  of  both 
man  and  God  a  "shadowy  concomitant"  of  brain  or  matter. 
It  denies  self-activity,  which  is  one  of  the  primal  facts  of 
life.  It  would  make  the  knowledge  of  self-deception  come 
the  same  way  as  truth.  It  denies  the  real  difference  be- 
tween living  and  dead,  natural  and  artificial.  It  conceives 
of  everything  as  either  identical  or  homogeneous.  It  re- 
duces the  individual  to  a  phase  of  the  universal.  It  takes 
principles  applicable  to  one  field  and  applies  them  to  an- 
other, even  though  dissimilar.  The  law  of  mechanics  can- 
not touch  color  or  such  changes.  It  obliterates  the  distinc- 
tion between  quantitative  and  qualitative.  It  gives  no 
room  for  new  beginnings  in  nature  and  man.  It  has  no 
room  for  freedom.  It  ignores  the  fundamental  fact  that 
the  thinker  who  conceives  of  this  theory  and  the  thinking 
are  not  mechanical.  It  denies  the  fact  of  struggle.  It 
cannot  recognize  the  difference  between  torpor  in  plant  life 
and  spontaneity  in  instinct.  It  makes  the  universe  un- 
moral. It  suffers  seriously  from  the  fallacy  of  over-simpli- 
fication. RTo  place  is  found  for  the  fact  that  ideals  lure 
men  onward  and  a  man,  unlike  a  pig  is  lured  from  above 

50 


THE  CANONS 

and  not  driven  from  behind.  There  could  really  be  no  so- 
cial problems  in  a  mechanical  universe,  since  both  indi- 
viduals and  society  act  merely  in  accordance  with  what 
their  nature  under  the  circumstances  compels  them  to  do. 

On  the  other  hand  if  the  analogy  were  applied  in  any 
true  sense  it  would  demand  a  place  for  a  creator,  for  design, 
for  purpose  and  for  providence.  But  it  is  just  the  nega- 
tion of  these  "needs"  which  constitutes  the  essential  charac- 
teristics of  the  theory.  Science,  according  to  a  wellknown 
writer,1  has  a  special  function  in  educating  mankind  out 
of  a  belief  in  Providence. 

The  theory,  however,  has  its  agents.  It  assumes  "inter- 
acting agencies"  in  nature;  definite  "modes  of  behavior" 
and  eternal  uniformity  of  action.  One  is  inclined  to  ask 
here  for  page  and  paragraph.  This  conception  of  agent,  if 
it  can  convey  any  definite  idea  at  all  is  an  analogy,  not 
drawn  from  likeness  to  a  machine  but  to  a  personality.  If 
the  thinking  were  only  logical,  then  the  spiritual  universe, 
the  one  we  know  best,  would  find  its  rightful  place  and 
the  thought  truer  orientation. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  thinkers  who  accept  this  theory 
merely  use  the  machine  analogy  to  argue  for  self-govern- 
ance from  within,  orderliness,  interaction,  uniformity  and 
mechanical  causation  in  nature.  The  central  point  is  the 
latter.  Given  mechanical  causation  the  others  must  follow 
or  be  assumed.  This  reveals  the  thinking  wholly  within 
the  field  of  metaphysics.  The  inference  is  that  personal 
freedom  and  initiative  are  self-deception. 

Is  it  not  fair  then  to  ask  whether  this  is  not  more  desir- 

*  John  Burroughs, 

51 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

ing  than  thinking  ?  An  analogy  of  a  machine,  minus  prac- 
tically all  the  vital  points  the  comparison  should  heed  is 
selected,  it  is  then  transfigured  and  its  opposite  personal 
is  used,  and  finally  the  sustaining  elements  in  all  human 
faith — orderliness  and  uniformity  and  causation — are 
grounded  in  physical  nature.  Thus  men  can  have  faith  in 
the  eternal  subsistence  of  things  because  of  the  machine- 
like  nature  of  the  universe.  There  are  some  minds  to 
whom  faith  in  the  regular  workings  of  the  universe  finds 
its  reasonable  satisfaction  when  causation  and  continuity 
are  grounded  in  Personality — and  finally  in  a  Supreme 
Personality. 

The  reductio  ad  absurdum  of  the  theory  is  seen  when  we 
contemplate  a  free  man,  rejoicing  in  his  freedom  to  clear 
away  evils  and  create  new  truth,  creating  a  mechanical 
universe  in  which  he  could  not  exist.  It  is  surely  the 
painter  painting  a  picture  and  then  vanishing  into  it ;  or  to 
recall  the  old  illustration,  it  is  the  man  sitting  oiJ  a  limb 
and  sawing  himself  off. 

This  mechanical  theory  can  hardly  then  be  used  as  a 
conclusion  whence  inferences  relating  to  religion  and 
morality  may  be  drawn.  The  fallacy  of  the  analogy  is 
plain  from  a  critical  study  of  the  process.  When  then  the 
inferences  are  made,  the  fact  of  the  fallacy  is  made  more 
certain.  For  there  is  nothing  mechanical  in  religion,  nor 
in  true  morality.  The  essence  of  religion  is  its  freedom, 
its  absoluteness,  its  radicalness.  It  never  has  and  never 
can  be  bound  within  mechanical  limitations.  Its  field  is 
much  wider  even  than  physical  nature  and  of  science  it- 
self. It  is  never  bound  by  a  mechanically  controlled  na- 
ture but  it  meets  nature  and  conquers  it.  It  eschews  the 


THE  CANONS 

fixed  nature.  Its  nature  is  achievement  and  achievement 
means  mastery  and  control.  Hence  if  this  mechanical 
theory  were  true,  this  fact  would  merely  signify  that  we 
must  needs  fight  harder  to  conquer  and  win.  Religion  al- 
ways looks  through  nature  to  the  Great  Cause  and  Provi- 
dential Ruler,  and  will  master  nature  in  the  purpose  and 
determination  to  achieve  union  with  this  Eternal  Person- 
ality. If  this  Personality  is  immanent  He  is  not  a  "con- 
comitant shadow." 

The  concluding  criticism  is  that,  though  the  symhol 
mechanism  is  used,  the  mechanical  theory  does  not  use  a 
mechanism  which  is  concrete  hut  substitutes  metaphysical 
concepts.  Instead  of  any  concrete  machine,  the  theory 
makes  use  of  the  definition  of  matter  as  mass  and  force,  and 
thus  the  concept  of  mechanics  is  an  attractive  force,  com- 
mon to  all,  working  on  a  collection  of  mass  points.  The 
theory  thus  eliminates  the  senses,  reduces  the  universe  to 
mechanical  units  of  length,  mass  and  time,  and  denies 
qualitative  judgments  and  subjective  measurements.  It 
hereby  repudiates  itself,  for  it  denies  the  place  and  valid- 
ity of  qualitative  judgments,  yet  is  itself  just  such  meta- 
physical, dogmatic  judgments.  It  builds  itself  up  on  sub- 
jective, theoretical,  abstract  and  universal  creations.  It 
confuses  fact  and  theory.  It  is  reasoning  from  subjective 
consciousness  to  objective  knowledge  of  natural  action. 
This  is  why  the  theory  is  always  presented  as  a  conclusion 
or  teaching  of  science. 


53 


CHAPTER  FOUR 

THE  CONTBOL  OF  LAW 

THE  next  of  these  fundamental,  unshakeable  conclusions 
to  be  considered  is  that  all  nature  is  under  the  reign  of 
law.  This  means  to  the  scientist  that  nature  or  the  physi- 
cal world,  animate  and  inanimate,  in  its  changes  possesses 
a  characteristically  constant  way  of  behaving.  The  natural 
agents  which  account  for  the  action  and  interaction  can  be 
relied  upon  to  act  in  a  consistent,  uniform  way  always. 
When  then  a  type  of  action  is  discovered  which  operates 
upon  a  large  and  comprehensive  scale  this  is  a  law.  This 
law  is  just  a  description  of  how  things  act.  When  a  de- 
scriptive law  of  such  universality  as  the  law  of  gravity  has 
been  reached  it  seems  legitimate  to  speak  of  a  reign  of  law. 
Things  heavier  than  air  will  always  fall  to  earth. 

This  conception  or  definition  of  a  law  as  a  description  of 
how  things  invariably  behave  is  the  true,  scientific  one. 
From  this  standpoint  there  can  be  no  miracle  in  the  sense 
of  a  breach  of  a  scientific  law.  This  would  mean,  as  Perry 
points  out,  that  such  a  law  had  failed  to  hold  within  its 
proper  field.  But  if  a  phenomenon,  such  as  an  ax  floating 
upon  the  surface  of  water  were  attested  or  could  be  repro- 
duced by  experiment,  this  would  not  mean  a  breach  of  the 
law;  it  would  show  its  lack  of  universality.  Here  would 
be  new  data  to  be  explained  or  the  law  must  be  amended. 
The  law  as  a  description  is  not  broken,  it  is  rendered  in- 
adequate. Hence  the  scientist  says  that  if  he  can  be 

54 


THE  CONTKOL  OF  LAW 

shown  cases  within  his  own  field  where  his  descriptive  law 
is  inadequate  he  will  be  the  first  to  seek  a  more  universal 
description.  The  invasion  of  his  field  with  claims  that 
cannot  be  experimentally  attested — for  such  are  his  laws — 
he  naturally  resents. 

The  crux  of  the  situation,  however,  as  touching  religion 
lies  in  another  direction.  The  orthodox  belief  is  that  God 
is  omnipotent,  and  that  all  uniformity  and  constancy  of 
behavior  in  nature  is  due  to  the  expression  of  his  will  and 
power.  The  reality  in  constancy  of  ways  of  action  is  not 
rooted  in  natural  laws  but  in  the  will  of  God.  It  is  evident 
that  God  wills  regularity  and  the  seasons  will  follow  each 
other  in  regular  order  and  the  oak  tree  will  produce  acorna 
and  grow  with  the  roots  in  the  earth.  He  therefore  has 
expressed  this  quality  of  his  character  and  will  in  the  fixed 
or  decreed  laws  in  the  physical  world.  These  laws  are  not 
inherent  natural  behavior  but  decrees.  God  said  and  it 
was  so.  These  laws  are  external  to  the  objects  of  nature 
and  control  them.  Some  theologians  confine  the  extent  of 
the  decrees  to  nature  only  while  others  comprise  God  him- 
self within  his  own  limitations.  These  thinkers  say  that 
because  of  this  self-limitation  God  himself  could  not  over- 
rule the  law  of  gravitation.  Others,  thinking  of  the  omnip- 
otence of  the  Deity  and  of  his  ability  to  change  his  mind, 
are  ready  to  declare  that  he  could  suspend  or  change  this 
law  on  a  moment's  notice.  But  if  he  did  we  need  have  no 
fear,  for  whatever  he  would  do  would  be  good  and,  to  him, 
regular. 

This  explanation  naturally  does  not  suit  the  scientist. 
It  is  too  general  and  does  not  come  to  close  grips  with  the 
observed  actions.  The  mere  willing  of  the  Deity  does  not 

55 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

cover  the  means  employed.  It  makes  the  cause  of  action 
and  change  in  every  case  the  same,  and  suffers  from  over- 
simplicity.  It  does  not  relate  this  will  of  God  intimately 
enough  with  natural  causation,  and  does  not  quite  satisfy 
the  fear  that  some  day  the  Deity  might  find  himself  in  an 
erratic  mood.  The  early  thinkers  evidently  experienced 
this  doubt,  so  they  conceived  of  the  rainbow  as  being  the 
sign  and  guarantee  of  constancy  and  uniformity. 

Now  all  the  scientist  professes  to  do  is  to  describe  from 
a  study  of  nature  itself  how  action  and  change  proceed. 
The  how  does  not  extend  beyond  the  physical  phenomena 
into  matters  personal.  Thus  he  and  the  theologian  may 
get  along  quite  comfortably  together.  Remaining  within 
his  field,  he  enunciates  such  laws  as  the  laws  of  gravity  and 
of  physics  in  general  and  here  his  word  must  be  authority. 
The  only  one  who  can  question  his  work  is  the  one  who, 
working  in  the  same  field  discovers  new  knowledge.  To- 
day this  is  the  position  of  the  majority  of  theologians  and 
religious  scholars.  As  noted  above  men  may  believe  as 
they  do  in  God,  and  in  his  relation  to  the  physical  world, 
accepting  the  proved  laws  of  science  as  the  how  of  his  will. 
There  are  others  who  will  believe  that  the  lightning  of  God 
does  strike  special  spots  at  definite  times,  but  the  naturaj 
order  still  prevails.  As  long  as  the  believers  in  special 
miracles  cannot  demonstrate  them  in  the  field  of  the  scien- 
tist each  can  go  his  way  rejoicing. 

But  this  concordat  is  not  satisfactory  to  our  science- 
theologians.  The  evils  of  superstition,  the  fooling  of  the 
credulous  with  fake  miracles  and  the  general  lack  of  confi- 
dence in  nature,  stirs  these  men  into  becoming  crusaders  for 

56 


THE  CONTROL  OF  LAW 

the  truth.  They  then  leave  behind  the  work  and  field  of 
pure  science  and  become  metaphysicians  and  theologians. 
They  forsake  the  task  of  scientific  description  and  create 
for  themselves  new  thought-concepts  with  which  they  can 
speak  authoritatively  on  the  question  of  the  why  of  action 
and  interaction  in  nature.  These  new  tools  or  metaphysi- 
cal concepts  are :  mechanical  necessity ;  action  according  to 
inherent  nature ;  ways  of  behavior ;  the  reign  of  law ;  attri- 
butes of  nature;  the  rules  of  the  game;  instructive  be- 
havior or  action  and  interaction  personified.  Through  the 
use  of  these  the  hypothesis  of  the  Deity  not  only  may  be, 
but  must  be  dispensed  with.  For  these  concepts  explain  all 
there  is  to  know  or  can  be  known.  Nature  \a  selfmoving, 
and  selfsustaiuiug  and  all  action  and  interaction  is  fixed  in 
laws  which  are  the  expression  of  the  inner  nature  itself. 
Thus  the  relation  of  the  Deity  to  the  physical  world  is  cer- 
tainly not  that  of  a  directive  Power  nor  of  a  possible  In- 
terferer.  The  hairs  of  our  head  may  be  divinely  numbered 
but  the  story  ends  right  there.  The  Providence  of  God  is 
an  irrational  relic  of  primitive  thinking. 

Before,  however,  we  accept  this  line  of  thinking  it  needs 
to  be  carefully  examined.  It  is  necessary  to  point  out  at 
the  outset  that  it  is  not  science  but  is  metaphysics.  It  has 
not  back  of  it  all  the  weight  that  science  in  general  has  in 
the  popular  mind  to-day.  To  call  it  science  is  to  sail  under 
false  colors.  Let  it  therefore  appear  in  its  true  light.  Not 
one  item  among  the  concepts  can  be  scientifically  demon- 
strated. 

It  may  be  asked  next  what  value  these  metaphysical  en- 
tities have  for  the  purposes  of  rational  thinking.  What 

57 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

is  the  nature  of  Nature?     The  scientist  would  never  of 
course  ask  the  question  much  less  try  to  answer  it.    When 
then  it  is  remembered  that  such  is  not  known  and  could 
not  be  scientifically  known  it  is  seen  at  once  that  we  are  in 
the  realm  where  anything  may  be  affirmed.    There  can  be 
no  innate  ideas  but  there  can  be  innate  natural  law. 

What  then  is  the  value  of  the  affirmation  which  is  not 
based  on  any  scientific  evidence  that  objects  in  nature  are 
and  they  act  according  to  what  they  are.  This  could  be 
dismissed  as  another  example  of  the  wisdom  which  says 
whatever  is  is,  were  it  not  that  it  carries  with  it  the  as- 
sumption of  finality  as  existent  in  nature.  This  is  the  old 
atomic  theory  of  isolated,  separate  independence  in  a  new 
dress,  and  is  as  valuable  as  this  exploded  theory.  The 
thinking  moreover  is  a  begging  of  the  whole  question,  for 
nature  is  defined  as  being  in  its  own  nature  independent  of 
the  Deity  and  then  this  is  used  as  the  argument  to  establish 
final  constancy  in  the  physical  world  and  abolish  the  Deity. 

The  discussion  of  the  law  of  necessity  has  shown  the 
fallacy  of  the  effort  to  interpret  all  actions  as  really  being 
the  result  of  a  rear  push.  Suffice  it  to  say  here  that  me- 
chanical necessity,  blind  forced  action  applies  only  to  a 
small  portion  of  the  universe.  A  rifle  ball  must  go  when 
pushed  and  a  potato  grows  in  accordance  with  the  necessity 
of  the  conditions.  But  not  so  with  human  beings.  We  act 
from  motive  which  is  self-motion.  We  choose  our  way  and 
accept  the  responsibility  for  what  we  choose  and  do.  To 
say  that  this  freedom  is  only  a  seeming  while  all  the  time 
necessity  rules  is  to  deny  all  knowledge.  It  means  that 
some  persons  know  concerning  others  what  these  do  not 
know  and  what  they  deny  for  themselves.  If  their 

58 


THE  CONTROL  OF  LAW 

knowledge  is  necessitated  and  mine  too  then  we  need  a 
new  knowledge  of  knowledge. 

The  limit  of  enthusiasm  is  reached  when  Law  is  written 
with  a  capital  and  a  Reign  of  Law  is  affirmed.  Such  a 
personification  of  a  mental  abstraction  must  be  excused  on 
the  ground  of  enthusiasm.  With  such  too  goes  the  attend- 
ant and  logical  view  that  all  nature  is  in  some  sense  alive 
and  therefore  acts  with  a  definite  end  in  view.  This  con- 
tention represents  the  effort  on  the  part  of  some  who  feel 
that  the  law  of  necessity  really  cannot  be  rationally  de- 
fended yet  they  are  loath  to  allow  freedom  and  purpose  to 
be  otherwise  explained  than  as  being  natural.  So  nature 
must  in  some  way  be  made  to  act  with  ends  in  view.  To 
add  to  the  nature  of  nature  the  quality  of  purpose  is  a 
higher  compliment  than  to  eternally  fix  all  objects  in  me- 
chanical necessity;  but  this  is  another  illustration  of 
reasoning  by  analogy  when  the  analogy  hardly  fits.  Per- 
sonal freedom  and  physical,  inorganic  motion  are  not  iden- 
tical or  even  like. 

In  summing  up  their  case  these  theologians  introduce  the 
question  of  the  relation  of  the  how  to  the  why.  At  the  out- 
set it  is  generally  affirmed  that  science  deals  only  with  the 
how  and  leaves  the  why  to  the  philosopher  and  theologian. 
But  after  dealing  with  such  metaphysical  concepts  as  the 
above  the  conviction  of  having  exchanged  the  how  for  the 
why  seems  to  become  dominant  in  their  minds.  An  expla- 
nation is  therefore  necessary.  The  change  in  our  concep- 
tion of  physical  explanation,  writes  Thompson,  "is  that  we 
explain  an  event  not  when  we  know  why  it  happened  but 
when  we  know  how  it  is  like  something  else  happening  else- 
where or  otherwise."  The  why  is  thus  really  explained  in 

59 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

the  explanation  of  the  how,  hence  there  is  no  real  distinc- 
tion between  these  two  ways  of  knowing  an  object  or  event. 
Difficulties  are  sometimes  easily  overcome. 

This  explanation  explains  only  if  there  is  no  real  dis- 
tinction between  science  and  metaphysics;  between  me- 
chanical and  personal  action;  between  necessity  and  free- 
dom; between  necessitated  action  and  idealism.  To  most 
men,  however,  these  distinctions  exist  and  are  real. 

On  these  grounds  then  it  can  hardly  be  admitted  that  the 
metaphysical  reasons  of  the  science-theologian  prove  an 
absolute  divorce  between  God  and  the  physical  world.  The 
absolute  independence  of  nature  and  natural  law  and  the 
implied  freedom  from  personal  manipulation  and  use  can- 
not be  said  to  be  scientifically  established.  Much  less  is 
the  inference  valid  that  persons  must  be  dictated  to  by  na- 
ture and  that  the  height  of  wisdom  is  attained  when  we  sub- 
mit with  docile  mien  to  necessitated  natural  law.  The 
religious  consciousness  never  has  and  never  will  accept  this 
attitude  of  submission.  This  line  of  thinking  does  not  take 
into  account  the  religious  conquest  of  nature. 

A  brief  review  of  this  religious  attitude  as  revealed  in 
our  Bible  will  show  the  constant  sense  of  superiority  of  the 
religious  man  to  the  laws  of  nature. 

In  the  two  versions  of  the  Flood  tradition  both  authors 
reveal  the  urge  of  the  fundamental  problem  involved.  It 
is  the  natural,  human  one  concerning  what  basis  men  have 
for  faith  in  orderliness,  uniformity  and  constancy  in  the 
physical  world.  Is  the  Deity,  who  to  be  worth  worshiping 
must  have  control  over  all  things,  constant  in  his  will  for 
orderliness  ?  Or  may  a  great  catastrophe  engulf  humanity 
most  any  time?  "What  evidence  or  assurance  can  men 

60 


THE  CONTROL  OE  LAW 

have  ?  The  answer  is,  that  God  has  declared  himself  bound 
to  orderliness,  so  men  need  not  fear  but  that  the  seasons 
will  follow  each  other  in  natural  order  and  seedtime  and 
harvest  will  not  fail  to  meet  the  human  needs.  The  one 
writer  adds  that  the  rainbow  is  the  sign  sealing  this  cove- 
nant of  constancy  between  God  and  man. 

Another  writer  to  whom  this  question  was  apparently 
entirely  settled  turned  his  eyes  intently  toward  the  physi- 
cal world.  Amos  saw  nature  quite  entirely  ruled  by  the 
iron  law  of  cause  and  effect — to  use  modern  terminology 
— natural  or  mechanical  causation.  "Shall  two  walk  to- 
gether except  they  have  agreed  ?  Will  a  lion  roar  in  the 
forest  when  he  hath  taken  no  prey  ?  Can  a  bird  fall  in  a 
snare  upon  the  earth  where  no  gin  is  set  for  him  ?  Shall 
the  trumpet  be  blown  in  a  city  and  the  people  not  be 
afraid?"  The  answer  is  in  each  case,  Certainly  not!  be- 
cause cause  and  effect  are  necessary  and  absolutely  related. 
On  the  strength  of  this  belief  he  therefore  pronounced 
doom  upon  his  people  because  they  had  broken  God's  laws, 
had  sinned,  and  the  resultant  punishment  was  inevitable. 
The  same  law  of  the  inevitable  relation  between  cause  and 
effect  prevailed  both  in  the  natural  world  and  in  the  moral 
and  religious. 

A  contemporary  of  Amos  looking  out  upon  the  same 
natural  world  but  from  a  different  inner  one  reached  a 
diametrically  opposed  conclusion.  Hosea  saw  another  law 
operative  in  human  destiny  which  was  superior  to  this 
mechanical,  un-feeling,  natural  one.  He  does  not  deny 
the  law  of  natural  cause  and  effect  but  he  declares  that  this 
is  not  the  last  word.  Whether  the  story  of  the  faithless 
wife  is  a  bit  of  domestic  history  or  an  illustration,  it  re- 

61 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

fleets  in  either  case  the  conviction  that  there  is  a  possible 
conquest  of  natural  law.  An  erring  wife  could  be  saved 
from  the  natural  results  of  her  evil  ways.  A  transforma- 
tion could  take  place  in  her  so  that  another  sequence  of 
cause  and  effect  resulting  in  goodness  might  become  opera- 
tive. God  could  forgive  his  sinning  people  and  break  no 
natural  law.  Cause  and  effect  rules  but  personality  can 
select  or  place  itself  in  the  position  where  this  necessity 
produces  the  desired  end. 

Other  biblical  thinkers  debated  this  necessity  side  of 
both  physical  and  spiritual  life.  One  declares  that  the 
soul  that  sinneth  it  must  die;  another,  that  pain  and 
disaster  are  certain  signs  of  a  producing  cause  which  is 
sin ;  while  others  held  firmly  to  the  power  and  goodwill  of 
the  Deity. 

Then  there  appears  that  salient  question,  Who  did  sin, 
this  man  or  his  parents  that  he  was  born  blind  ?  Which 
said  in  plain  words  that  God  used  the  physical  world  for 
his  purposes  and  his  way  was  that  of  necessarily  related 
cause  and  effect.  But  the  answer  is  short — neither.  God 
sends  his  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust.  The  ways  of 
nature  respect  not  sin  or  piety.  In  these  and  other  cases 
Jesus  recognized  the  sphere  and  place  of  natural  law. 

This  raises  the  whole  question  of  the  view  Jesus  took 
of  natural  law  and  of  the  relation  of  God  and  man  to  this 
physical  home  in  which  we  find  ourselves.  It  would  be 
very  easy  to  be  dogmatic,  since  there  is  divergence  of 
scholarly  opinion.  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  to  many  be- 
cause he  is  thought  of  as  having  been  able  to  seize  natural 
laws  by  the  handle  and  use  them  as  he  saw  fit.  To  many 
others  the  possession  of  this  power  would  not  enhance  his 

62 


THE  COJSTTKOL  OF  LAW 

character  or  his  divine  superiority.  It  is  recognized  to- 
day that  great  deeds  are  always  attributed  to  a  great  char- 
acter when  he  is  considered  great  enough  by  his  biogra- 
phers. There  is  also  a  distinction  to  be  recognized  in  the 
miracles  reported,  between  gifts  of  healing  (Charismata) 
and  the  miracles  of  power  (Dunamis),  the  casting  out  of 
demons. 

Without  entering  into  debate  there  are  perhaps  two 
facts  relative  to  this  matter  which  will  not  be  questioned. 
The  one  is  that  Jesus  fully  recognized  the  orderliness,  con- 
stancy and  fixity  of  natural  as  well  as  of  moral  and  re- 
ligious law.  Christianity  would  not  take  men  up  out  of 
this  world  nor  cause  the  rain  to  fall  on  the  unjust  only:  it 
would  make  men  conquerers  of  the  world  and  its  laws. 
Neither  would  the  law  of  personal  choice  be  overriden  but 
he  who  chose  the  Good  would  conquer.  There  is  no  neces- 
sitated choice  but  when  the  choice  is  once  made  the  law 
comes  into  play.  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy 
children  together  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens 
under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not ! 

The  other  is  that  men  may  use  the  fixed  laws  of  life  both 
physical  and  spiritual  either  to  achieve  eternal  success  or 
invite  failure.  The  laws  of  digestion  are  laws  which  men 
may  use  for  their  own  good  or  ill.  The  wise  man  observes 
the  times  and  the  seasons.  Oil  in  a  lamp  will  burn  and 
give  light  but  men  must  choose  the  light  and  keep  the  lamp 
full.  Passions  tear  some  men  asunder  but  controlled  drive 
a  great  soul  like  Paul  hither  and  thither  to  enlighten  man- 
kind. The  natural  instincts  can  be  and  are  transformed 
into  character.  The  metaphysical  are  of  things  is  indiffer- 
ent, so  will  do  its  work  for  the  good  man  or  the  evil  aecord- 

63 


THE  KELIGIOlSr  OF  SCIENCE 

ing  as  it  is  used.  The  winds  blow  as  is  their  way  of  acting 
but  to  the  conquering  soul  it  matters  not  whether  they  blow 
east,  west,  north  or  south ;  he  will  fight  or  use  them  accord- 
ing to  his  plans  and  purpose.  Disease  germs  will  come  but 
the  necessary  death  shall  not  follow.  Death  will  come  but 
it  does  not  conquer.  Christian  morality  means  two  con- 
quests :  the  physical  world  and  the  self. 

The  use  of  the  natural  world  is  not  confined  to  our 
moral  conquest  but  much  more  to  our  religious.  In  fact 
this  latter  is  first  and  conditions  the  former.  The  central 
fact  for  consideration  here  is  the  fact  of  conversion.  We 
are  not  using  this  term  in  the  meaning  of  some  of  the 
phases  of  the  experience,  such  as  the  emotional  or  the  in- 
tellectual or  the  act  of  will ;  but  in  all  of  these.  Leaving 
doctrine  behind,  we  would  note  the  plain  fact  that  men  are 
changed  and  do  change  their  relation  both  to  the  natural 
laws,  to  their  fellowmen  and  to  their  God.  The  further 
point  emphasized  is  that  this  change  does  not  alter  or  break 
any  laws :  it  is  a  change  of  relation  to  these.  There  may  be 
evidence  of  a  law  of  the  jungle  operative  in  a  selfish  and 
competitive  character  wherein  one's  fellowman  is  thought 
of  as  a  beast  or  as  a  possible  source  of  profit  for  ourselves. 
But  this  character  is  transformed  and  then  our  fellowman 
is  viewed  as  a  brother  and  a  new  law  becomes  operative, 
the  law  of  brotherhood.  So  we  view  the  life  of  goodness 
as  the  worthy  one,  ally  ourselves  with  it  and  immediately 
the  stars  in  their  courses  fight  with  us.  We  worship  beasts 
and  become  beastly — the  law  works.  We  view  nature  as  a 
closed  system,  independent,  absolute  and  mechanical  and 
the  law  will  work  which  robs  the  soul  of  the  religious  spirit 
of  conquest  and  attainment  of  the  ideal  and  leaves  it  the 

64 


THE  CONTROL  OF  LAW 

ephemeral  satisfaction  of  esthetic  worship.  We  view  the 
physical  universe  as  orderly,  constant  and  even  in  part 
mechanical  but  yet  as  conquerable  and  usable  in  our 
achievement  of  our  personal  immortality  and  the  law  will 
work.  We  will  achieve.  The  rationality  of  the  religious 
consciousness  finds  no  reason  in  the  effort  to  describe  the 
physical  world  as  absolute,  as  conquering  and  not  as  con- 
querable. This  natural  world  is  conquerable  and  this  is 
reason  and  not  mere  emotion. 

The  general  thought  of  the  religious  use  of  the  world  of 
nature  brings  into  the  discussion  the  Christian  teaching  of 
Providence.  The  general  interpretation  of  this  doctrine 
is  that  in  the  physical  world  not  a  sparrow  falleth  to  the 
ground  without  divine  knowledge  while  in  the  human 
world  even  the  very  hairs  of  the  head  are  numbered  in  his 
sight.  God  watches  over  his  own,  keeping  them  from 
harm,  using  the  laws  of  nature  as  he  pleases  in  answer  to 
prayer  and  in  general  turning  all  things  to  good.  The 
special  point  in  the  general  conception  of  the  doctrine  is 
that  God  will  send  rain  or  withhold  it,  check  disease  di- 
rectly and  without  mediating  assistance  and  on  occasion 
check  the  natural  effects  which  a  cause  naturally  produces, 
as  a  special  favor.  He  will  specially  provide  all  things 
necessary  and  good. 

The  criticisms  of  this  doctrine  by  the  science-theologian 
are  in  the  main  that  it  impugns  the  majesty  and  fixity  of 
natural  law.  A  recent  writer 1  of  wide  fame  argues  strenu- 
ously against  the  doctrine  of  special  providence  but  in 
favor  of  natural  providence.  The  belief  in  special  provi- 

i  John  Burroughs,  "Accepting  the  Universe." 

65 


THE  EELIGIOJST  OF  SCIENCE 

dence  he  urges  is  untrue  because  natural  providence  is  not 
intermittent  but  perennial ;  it  takes  no  thought  for  persons ; 
it  reveals  no  deliberate  and  thoughtful  action ;  it  works  by 
the  hit-and-miss  method;  no  god  watches  over  man  aside 
from  himself  and  his  kind;  our  inevitable  anthropomor- 
phism suggests  sympathy  and  interest  in  us  on  the  part 
of  the  universe;  and  there  are  no  gifts  in  nature  but  all 
things  are  bought  with  a  price. 

Such  observations  are  of  value  mainly  as  reminders  of 
the  obvious.  But  their  further  value  is  impaired  by  the 
fact  that  when  a  man  looks  into  a  universe  which  is  natural 
merely  he  naturally  will  see  none  of  the  truly  spiritual  or 
religious.  It  is  like  the  man  living  behind  the  high  moun- 
tain who  sees  the  universe  as  a  mountain.  This  mental 
process  of  selecting  a  part  of  our  world  experience  and 
calling  it  the  whole  limits  its  usefulness  and  truthfulness 
at  the  very  outset.  The  main  value  of  the  process  will  con- 
sist in  showing  up  both  its  own  limitations  and  that  of 
others  like  it.  There  are  thinkers  with  like  tendencies 
who  see  in  this  universe  nothing  much  beyond  spiritual 
reality.  They  too  see  only  partial  truth. 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  this  doctrine  reveals 
three  outstanding  facts.  The  firpt  is  that  he  saw  more  in 
the  universe  than  mere  force,  mass,  gravity,  action,  and 
interaction,  and  natural  providence.  He  saw  all  this  but 
more.  "I  and  my  Father  are  one."  He  reveals  the  full 
use  of  reason  in  his  rational  and  sympathetic  relation  to  the 
spiritual  side  of  the  universe.  He  found  life  and  missed 
the  cosmic  chill.  So  do  men  at  all  times  find  the  true  life 
when  they  awake  to  the  fact  of  and  experience  this  spiritual 
companionship.  When  the  human  mind  thinks  with  the 

66 


THE  CONTROL  OF  LAW 

Supreme  Mind ;  when  the  sense  of  divine  fellowship  is  ra- 
tionally experienced;  and  when  the  sense  of  being  a  co- 
worker  with  God  enthuses  the  soul,  then  is  when  we  can 
begin  to  write  the  biography  of  the  great  men  of  history. 

Then  Jesus  does  not  take  the  unscientific  attitude  to- 
wards nature  in  the  sense  of  the  breaking  of  laws  or  the 
possibility  of  dangerous  chaos  appearing  any  moment. 

He  taught  that  to  him  who  chose  the  better  part  all 
things  were  favorable,  even  the  physical  world.  If  we 
mistake  not,  the  meaning  here  is  to  be  understood  in  the 
religious  sense  only.  From  this  standpoint  the  evidence  is 
conclusive.  The  Christian  man  by  placing  himself  in  the 
right  relation,  first  to  God  and  then  to  natural  law  will  find 
that  all  things  work  together  for  good.  Burroughs  needed 
to  have  supplemented  his  vision  of  the  place  of  human  ef- 
fort by  adding  to  it  our  great  allies,  God  and  nature. 
Christian  civilization,  on  its  material  and  social  sides,  ifl 
our  seeking  and  finding  that  relation  to  natural  laws, 
whereby  we  can  use  them  and  turn  their  activity  in  our 
favor. 

Can  God  then  break  a  natural  law  such  as  that  things 
heavier  than  water  will  sink?  Science  says  no,  while 
there  are  records  which  affirm  the  opposite  answer.  Many 
other  answers  have  also  been  given.  The  one  that  the  fix- 
ity of  natural  law  is  the  concrete  evidence  of  God's  self- 
expression  and  therefore  to  break  a  law  would  mean  divine 
self-destruction  is  of  great  value.  Does  not,  however,  the 
whole  problem  resolve  itself  into  another  question  ?  Where 
are  we  to  look  for  the  source  and  guarantee  of  the  constancy 
of  constancy  and  the  uniformity  of  the  uniform  workings 
of  law  ?  Is  it  in  a  mechanical,  organic  and  material  world 

67 


THE  EELIGIOIST  OF  SCIENCE 

of  nature  or  is  it  in  a  supreme  Personality?  The  latter 
source  seems  to  satisfy  our  rational  demands,  when  the 
facts  of  human  life,  as  well  as  those  of  nature  are  taken 
into  consideration. 

These  then  are  the  canons  or  dogmas  upon  which  the 
science-theologian  founds  the  conclusions  whence  he  draws 
his  inferences — conservation  of  matter,  conservation  of 
energy,  the  mechanical  theory,  and  the  reign  of  law.  The 
facts  a  critical  examination  reveal  are:  true  scientists  do 
not  regard  these  as  conclusions  but  as  workable  hypotheses ; 
they  are  descriptive  phrases;  they  have  been  made  into 
metaphysical  theories  by  the  science-theologian  hence  taken 
out  of  the  class  science;  they  have  never  been  proved  and 
cannot  even  be  scientifically  demonstrated,  hence  can  never 
truthfully  be  classed  as  scientific  conclusions.  Inferences 
based  upon  such  metaphysical  thinking  must  then  be  evalu- 
ated for  what  they  are.  The  essential  point  is  that  to  place 
the  authority  of  science  behind  such  is  quite  wide  of  truth. 
A  religion  of  science  based  upon  such  theories  transformed 
into  dogmas  rests  upon  a  very  unstable  foundation. 


'68 


CHAPTEE  FIVE 

THE  SACKED  BIBLE  OF  NATURE 

religions  of  advanced  standing  have  a  Sacred  Book 
or  Literature.  This  Book,  unlike  all  others  is  a  special 
revelation  and  it  is  authority.  The  religion  of  science  de- 
clares that  nature  itself  is  the  source  of  authority  and 
revelation,  but  the  revelation  will  be  given  only  to  him 
who  seeks  with  open  and  properly  prepared  mind.  Nature 
gives  its  revelation  with  a  certain  character  of  absoluteness, 
the  knowledge  is  given  immediately,  and  it  carries  with  it 
the  judgment  that  it  is  truth.  This  item  of  the  religion  is 
thus  distinctive  enough  to  be  given  a  place  by  itself.  Here 
we  have  what  science  calls  its  given  truth.  The  proof  of 
the  postulate  is  in  the  results  or  in  the  fact  that  the  belief 
in  this  given  truth  must  be  accepted  else  science  is  impos- 
sible. 

Stated  in  other  terms,  science  declares  that  for  her  pur- 
poses the  physical  universe  exists  independent  and  abso- 
lute; that  this  universe  has  an  independent,  objective  exist- 
ence ;  and  if  not  absolutely  self -existent  apart  from  men's 
thinking  is  yet  independent  enough  to  be  so  treated ;  and 
that  time  and  space  are  objective  realities  and  not  merely 
categories  of  the  mind.  This  is  the  statement  of  the  case 
as  the  true  scientist  thinks.  When  he  calculates  the  specific 
gravity  of  iron  or  handles  a  plant  he  is  to  be  considered  as 
handling  something  concrete  and  not  a  mere  phenomenon 
or  a  thought. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

To  treat  physical  objects  as  concrete  reality  and  base 
scientific  conclusions  upon  actual  physical  data  is  the  prov- 
ince of  the  scientist.  When  he  postulates  his  given  reality 
behind  the  sense  data  he  is  assuming  what  he  feels  his 
labors  and  findings  need  and  warrant.  He  says  rightly 
that  no  one  can  know  this  reality  as  sense  data.  He  never- 
theless makes  an  affirmation  concerning  this,  to  him  un- 
known reality  and  thus  whether  willingly  or  against  his 
will  he  enters  the  field  of  metaphysics.  Some  prefer  to 
stop  at  this  point  and  rest  satisfied  with  the  as  if  existent 
reality. 

The  science-theologian,  however,  is  not  content  to  stop 
at  this  point.  He  feels  a  call  to  enter  the  field  of  meta- 
physics. Having  made  the  step  forward,  he  projects  vast 
speculations,  falsely  names  these  scientific  facts  and  then 
draws  theological  inferences.  He  also  tacitly  assumes  that, 
since  the  study  of  physical  phenomena  has  produced  such 
valuable  results,  the  same  good  results  must  follow  the 
metaphysical  speculation.  The  result  is  the  theology  or 
philosophy  known  as  naturalism.  The  distinctive  phase 
of  this  ism  is  phrased  naturalism  versus  supernaturalism. 

The  conclusions  which  this  naturalism  lead  to  are  clearly 
defined.  The  external  world  is  actual  and  real.  The  phe- 
nomena we  know  is  both  the  appearance  or  function  of  ob- 
jective existence  and  the  objective  existence  itself.  Nature 
exists  as  absolute,  independent  reality,  independent  of  our 
knowledge  of  it.  The  essence  or  reality  is  substance,  mat- 
ter or  force.  Matter  and  energy  are  eternally  conserved, 
which  is  in  keeping  with  the  eternal  character  of  nature. 
Here  then  is  the  primary  reality  of  the  universe.  Here,  in 
nature  is  the  Bible,  whence  come  inspired  knowledge  and 

70 


THE  SACKED  BIBLE  OF  NATURE 

truth.  Nature  reveals  truth  to  the  man  whom  she  has  cre- 
ated to  receive  it.  Men,  knowledge,  religion  will  vanish 
but  nature  exists  forever.  The  only  true  knowledge,  then, 
is  scientific  knowledge  and  the  only  true  religious  and 
moral  knowledge  is  contained  in  the  science-theology  which 
bears  the  name  science. 

The  special  theological  inferences  from  these  conclu- 
sions are  two :  First,  the  idea  of  the  supernatural  is  due  to 
misunderstanding,  for  natural  causes  prevail  everywhere; 
and  secondly,  the  revelation  in  the  Bible,  that  is,  the  belief 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  is  based  on  false  and 
irrational  knowledge.  In  place  of  these  false  premises 
must  be  put  inerrant  nature  with  natural  causation. 

Now  the  road  to  these  theological  conclusions  leads 
through  philosophy  and  theory  of  knowledge  before  it 
reaches  its  purposed  end.  It  would  be  in  order  then  to  in- 
quire how  this  scientific  venturer  fared  on  his  journey 
through  these  territories,  and  if  he  comes  into  the  field  of 
theology  with  credentials  which  give  strength  to  his  new 
wisdom.  The  inquiry  seems  to  find  him,  not  only  without 
credentials,  but  like  a  shipwrecked  mariner. 

The  vital  philosophical  criticisms  of  naturalism  have 
been  formally  stated  "by  many  writers.1  These  judgments 
may  be  tersely  summed  up.  Naturalism  is  not  science  but 
assertions  about  science  labeled  with  this  name.  It  ab- 
stracts one  phase  of  the  universe,  the  physical,  and  then 
fallaciously  makes  it  the  whole  universe.  Its  concepts  are 
given  the  character  of  generality  and  sufficiency,  but  they 
possess  these  qualities  only  as  speculation.  It  parades  in 

i  J.  Ward,  "Naturalism  and  Agnosticism,"  eta. 

71 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

the  garb  of  utter  simplicity,  but  fails  to  note  that  the  sim- 
plicity is  a  characteristic  of  the  "knowledge  of  the  thing 
and  not  the  thing  itself."  1  It  thus  reveals  a  thinker  whose 
mind  is  empty  of  diversity  but  who  tries  to  make  this 
diversity  the  mark  of  the  universe.  It  fails  to  relate  neces- 
sarily the  eternal  unchanging  substance  or  matter  which  is 
unknown  to  the  sense  phenomena  which  is  known.  It 
cannot  really  explain  law  in  nature,  much  less  the  facts  of 
physical  experience.  It  is  a  monism  which  engulfs  itself 
in  its  own  words.^,  But  above  all  it  not  only  finds  no  place 
for  moral  and  religious  values  but  actually  negates  these. 
The  philosophical  credentials  therefore  are  a  summary  of 
positively  evil  results  and  influences. 

The  theory  of  knowledge  implied  is  a  revival  of  the  view 
of  John  Locke  and  thus  remains  innocent  of  the  clearer 
thinking  of  Hume,  Kant  and  other  modern  philosophers. 
If  it  were  taken  literally  it  would  end  in  science  denying 
what  it  professes,  for  sensationalism  and  immediacy  can 
never  arrive  at  knowledge.  The  naivete  of  this  theory  is 
recognized  by  some  modern,  scientific  writers,  who  realize 
that  the  claim,  that  scientific  knowledge  is  the  only  true 
kind  rests  on  unstable  foundations.  These  thinkers  have 
then  produced  a  critical  philosophy  of  science  which  uses 
non-physical  terms  and  provides  for  non-physical  methods 
and  theories.  The  result  is  not  only  a  repudiation  of  the 
natural  theorists  but  ends  by  reducing  the  world  of  nature 
to  forms  of  logic.  The  essential  point  to  note  is  that  the 
claim  that  scientific  knowledge  is  the  only  possible  knowl- 
edge is  not  supported  by  either  branch  of  the  scientific 

i  Perry,  p.  66. 

72 


THE  SACKED  BIBLE  OF  NATURE 

metaphysicians.  If  we  took  these  thinkers  at  their  word 
science  would  lose  very  rapidly  its  prestige  among  men. 
It  is  therefore  a  service  to  science  to  brush  away  such 
unfounded  and  illadvised  claims  and  give  scientific  knowl- 
edge its  rightful  place  and  evaluation. 

In  the  field  of  theology  the  issue  is  stated  as  naturalism 
versus  supernaturalism.  This  is  the  bible  of  nature  versus 
our  Bible.  Whereas  reference  has  been  made  and  by  some 
still  is  being  made  to  the  Scriptures  as  divinely  inspired 
writings,  which  reveal  authoritative  knowledge  for  men, 
we  to-day  must  divest  our  thinking  of  this  delusion,  change 
our  source-book  and  go  directly  to  nature.  Here  we  will 
discover  natural  truth,  which,  because  of  its  imperious 
and  surpassing  character,  will  automatically  displace  the 
supernatural.  It  is  hinted  that  one  of  the  greatest  examples 
of  service  to  humanity  was  accomplished  when  science  re- 
lieved mankind  of  belief  in  the  supernatural.  But  have 
we  not  here  another  example  of  the  fallacy  of  simplicity  ? 

The  supernatural,  as  Professor  Conklin  sees  it,  is  the 
revelation,  which  is  our  Bible,  by  reference  to  which 
theologians  find  authority  for  miracles,  teachings  concern- 
ing creation,  special  providence,  and  eternal  rewards  or 
punishments.  If  any  of  these  revealed  truths,  it  is  de- 
clared, touch  science  they  are  of  course  to  be  considered  the 
truth :  if  science  does  not  accept  the  truth  gladly  it  must 
be  disciplined.  This  supernatural,  however,  when  rightly 
seen  is  natural,  and  natural  causation  does  away  with  the 
need  of  any  such  external  references. 

Now  this  definition  or  view  of  the  supernatural  is  en- 
tirely too  narrow.  It  is  a  selection  of  the  application  of 
the  belief  in  the  supernatural  to  a  collection  of  sacred 

73 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

writings.  It  turns  the  discussion  then  away  from  the 
supernatural  in  general  to  such  questions  as :  Does  the  Bible 
intend  to  teach  science  ?  What  is  the  value  of  the  creation 
stories  in  Genesis  ?  What  about  the  miracles  noted  in  the 
Bible?  How  are  we  to  evaluate  the  ideas  and  beliefs 
of  our  biblical  writers  ?  It  is  evident  that  these  questions 
may  be  answered — even  negatively — and  the  whole  prob- 
lem as  first  stated  remain. 

What,  however,  men  of  science  really  desire  in  this  con- 
nection is  fair  play.  They  rebel,  as  all  free  men  do, 
against  mere  authority.  They  rebel  against  the  supernat- 
ural because  it  is  used  to  bolster  up  dogmatic  pride  and 
unthinking  authority — which  all  too  often  hold  back  the 
progress  of  truth.  It  is  one  of  the  tragedies  of  human 
progress  that  good,  enthusiastic,  courageous  men  like  Saul 
do  not  all  become  a  Paul.  The  real  problem  then  is, 
What  is  the  truth  in  the  belief  in  the  supernatural  ? 

There  is  a  distinctively  modern  viewpoint  which  is  gain- 
ing ground  mainly  because  of  the  method  used  by  modern 
scholars.  The  modern  Literary  and  Historical  or  Scien- 
tific Method  seems  to  have  advanced  us  nearer  truth. 

Let  us  consider  first  the  applications  made  by  these 
science  thinkers  of  the  belief  in  the  supernatural.  Take 
the  question  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  The  theory 
rife  in  Josephus'  time  but  made  very  prevalent  since  Lu- 
ther's day  is  that  of  literal  inspiration.  Every  word,  jot 
and  tittle  was  either  written  or  dictated  directly  to  and 
through  the  human  amanuensis  to  men.  The  Bible  is 
therefore  in  no  sense  a  human  product.  It  moreover  can 
be  read  and  understood  by  any  one  and  must  be  taken 
literally.  When,  therefore,  the  Bible  says :  "The  sun  goes 


THE  SACKED  BIBLE  OF  NATURE 

forth  .  .  .,"  scientists  must  know  that  the  sun  moves  and 
not  the  earth. 

Now  this  theory  has  been  discarded  long  since  by  all 
thinking  men  on  the  evidence  of  the  Book  itself.  It  had 
to  go  as  soon  as  we  learned  when  writing  began  among 
the  Hebrews,  the  nature  of  early  writings,  the  facts  about 
the  subjects  treated  and  the  writers,  and  the  history  of  the 
preservation  and  canonization  of  these  selected  books.  In- 
ternal evidence,  which  reveals  the  processes  of  collection 
and  editing,  the  character  and  tendency  of  the  author,  the 
differences  of  viewpoint,  and  growth  in  moral  and  reli- 
gious outlook,  all  confirmed  this  judgment  against  literal 
inspiration. 

Then  followed  the  inevitable  result.  To  some  the  Bible 
became,  as  the  result  of  these  critical  studies,  'merely  lit- 
erature. To  others,  on  the  contrary,  it  represents  values 
which  can  only  be  called  inspired  or  supernatural — some- 
thing above  other  writings  and  literature. 

The  fixed  fact  in  the  whole  matter  is  that  the  Bible  has 
had  a  history.  It  is  a  culled  literature  selected  from  a 
large  body  of  varied  writings.  The  sixty-six  books  repre- 
sent the  result  of  selection  where  fixed  standards  were  set 
up.  It  is  fundamentally  religious  and  moral  literature. 
It  contains  every  variety  of  human  writings.  It  has  filled 
and  still  fills  and  will  continue  to  hold  a  large  place  in 
human  life  and  civilization.  There  are  no  other  writings 
of  equal  value. 

Is  it  then  literature?  Certainly  so!  But  care  must 
be  taken  here  to  note  that  the  definition  of  literature  may 
be  revised  upwards.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  mere  lit- 
erature. Is  it  inspired  ?  The  answer  is  its  value  and  the 

75 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

values  it  holds  up  for  mankind.  Does  the  Bible  teach 
science  ?  The  Bible  in  the  true  sense  teaches  not.  It  is 
a  record  of  religious  and  moral  thinking  and  acting  which 
is  of  supreme  value  for  human  education.  Some  of  the 
writers  naturally  touch  upon  matters  relating  to  the 
physical  universe,  but  all  do  not  take  the  same  view,  as 
noted  above.  Why  should  we  try  to  make  earlier  thinking 
on  matters  relative  to  the  physical  world  per  se  authorita- 
tive for  to-day  ? 

The  facts  relative  to  Genesis  chapters  one  to  three  in- 
clude the  knowledge  of  two  different  types  of  writers,  both 
of  which  are  working  over  older  Babylonian  speculations. 
These  two  authors  do  not  agree  on  all  the  details  nor  in 
the  use  they  make  of  the  borrowed  tradition.  The  interest 
of  each  is  decidedly  religious  rather  than  scientific.  If 
either  they  or  their  predecessors  discovered  scientific  facts 
"which  can  be  experimentally  proved  to-day,  all  the  more 
honor  to  them.  It  may  then  be  said  that  modern  biblical 
scholarship  agrees  with  the  scientist,  that  he  should  go 
ahead  and  increase  our  scientific  knowledge  of  the  physical 
world  without  the  feeling  that  his  labors  are  going  unap- 
preciated. 

This  modern  method  of  biblical  interpretation,  if  it 
were  given  the  place  it  deserves  among  the  professed  inter- 
preters of  the  Bible  would  relieve  the  present  tension  be- 
tween thinking  men  and  religious  leaders.  It  would  ac- 
complish this  desired  result,  because  through  its  use  each 
book  and  statement  of  the  Bible  would  be  understood  as 
the  author  himself  intended  it  should  be.  We  would  not 
be  trying  to  make  an  eighth  century  B.C.  herdsman  speak 
the  language,  wholly,  of  the  twentieth.  The  fact  that  some 

76 


THE  SACKED  BIBLE  OF  NATURE 

of  our  biblical  seers  did,  by  times,  rise  above  tbeir  times 
and  give  utterance  to  timeless  wisdom  is  the  source  of 
perpetual  value  of  the  Bible.  But  all  the  beliefs  and  wis- 
dom of  these  writers  is  not  timeless  in  value. 

The  principle  of  natural  causation  is  more  and  more 
gaining  a  grip  on  our  thinking.  According  to  this  princi- 
ple the  thinking  of  the  eighth  or  the  third  century  B.C. 
as  represented  in  these  creation  stories  is  considered  the 
natural  product  of  the  conditions  of  that  time.  The  be- 
lief in  providence  is  explained  as  the  effect  of  a  contracted 
view  of  both  the  universe  and  of  God.  If  a  miracle  ever 
does  occur  it  will  be  found  on  thorough  research  to  have 
a  natural  cause.  If  a  man  is  possessed  of  devils  there  is 
a  natural  reason.  Jacob's  dream  was  probably  caused  by 
his  uncomfortable  position  and  the  hardness  of  his  stone 
pillow.  If  one  afflicted  becomes  well  there  is  a  natural 
cause  though  it  may  not  yet  be  known.  If  a  man  is  pros- 
perous, the  cause  is  his  thriftiness  and  not  the  providence 
of  God.  It  is  unnecessary  to  relate  even  the  sudden,  the 
extraordinary  or  the  apparently  unexplainable  to  direct 
action  of  God  or  any  supernatural  agency.  Natural  ex- 
planations can  therefore  be  found  for  all  events  or 
thoughts.  The  world  of  thinking  has  thus  been  cleared  of 
much  of  the  superstitious  and  the  shallow,  and  the  world 
in  which  we  live  has  become  better  known.  However, 
we  have  as  yet  touched  but  the  fringe  of  the  supernatural. 

This  issue  between  the  natural  and  supernatural  is 
expressed  by  other  thinkers  in  a  different  form.  Two 
realms  are  defined  as  standing  over  against  each  other: 
the  realm  of  nature  versus  the  realm  of  grace.  The  nat- 
ural man,  living  in  the  former  of  these,  is  of  the  eartft 

77 


THE  KELIGIOIST  OF  SCIENCE 

earthy  and  must  go  the  way  of  earthy  things  plus  eternal 
damnation  unless  God's  free  grace  arrests  him  and  con- 
verts him  into  a  spiritual  man.  No  man  can  save  him- 
self for  salvation  is  of  God.  Something  supernatural 
must  find  him  and  he  he  horn  again  if  he  is  ever  to  attain 
unto  his  real  destiny.  In  the  lower  realm  each  person  is 
compelled  to  choose  but  in  the  upper  he  is  acted  upon  and 
assured  (with  theological  variations)  of  the  supernatural 
existence. 

Now  neither  of  these  citations  do  more  than  touch  the 
real  issue  in  the  matter.  This  theological  teaching  ex- 
pressed in  the  doctrine  of  separated  realms  is  thinking 
which  moves  in  the  sphere  of  the  magical  and  not  the  super- 
natural. Eirst  the  two  realms  are  defined  as  separate  and 
then  naturally  the  passage  from  one  to  the  other  could 
only  be  made  by  a  miracle  or  magically.  Hence  the  large 
appeal  to  mystery  in  much  religious  thinking.  But  if  we 
would  save  ourselves  trouble  over  gratuitous  problems  and 
see  that  life  is  a  whole  and  that  the  difference  between 
the  natural  man  and  the  spiritual  is  a  difference  in  quality 
and  not  a  separation,  we  could  view  the  supernatural  as 
different  from  the  magical. 

Conversion  is  a  fact.  Twice  born  men  abound  in  our 
midst  but  their  present  character  is  not  the  product  of 
magic  nor  of  natural  causes  in  the  sense  where  natural 
relates  to  the  physical  world. 

What  then  is  the  supernatural  which  is  greater  and 
beyond  a  theory  of  the  inspiration  of  certain  writings  or 
a  theory  involving  magical  change?  It  is  the  Other 
World,  the  greater  values,  the  supreme  meaning  of  life, 
the  eternal  destiny,  the  supreme  Personality  by  reference 

.78 


THE  SACKED  BIBLE  OF  STATUKE 

to  which  and  in  companionship  with  whom  men  interpret 
and  evalute  both  the  natural  "world  and  our  physical  ex- 
istence. It  is  the  rational  observation  that  we  are  citizens 
of  two  worlds,  one  yet  distinct,  the  life  of  the  one  being 
temporal  while  that  of  the  other  is  eternal. 

The  knowledge  of  this  higher  world  and  higher  life  is 
not  a  mere  intellectual  judgment  of  values  nor  the  product 
of  emotion,  but  a  matter  of  personal  experience.  And 
the  fact  which  stands  out  in  clearness  is,  that  we  evaluate 
this  experience  as  more  real  and  abiding  than  the  experi- 
ence of  the  physical,  natural  life.  The  very  essence  of 
life — true  life  and  abundant — is  known  only  when  this 
higher  experience  dominates.  Conversely,  if  this  were 
taken  out  of  life,  then  our  science-theologians  would  not 
care  to  remain  here  long  enough  to  enjoy  the  cosmic  thrill, 
contemplate  the  wonders  of  nature  or  esthetically  worship 
the  True,  the  Beautiful  and  the  Good.  It  is  the  supernat- 
ural which  gives  value  to  the  natural.  It  is  the  super- 
natural shining  through  the  Bible  which  is  its  inspira- 
tion. 

This  then  is  the  real  fact  in  our  creation  stories.  The 
religious  soul  here  expresses  the  vital,  religious  judgment 
that  the  supernatural  holds  the  place  of  primacy.  In  the 
beginning  or  in  beginning,  God.  The  application  of  this 
assertion  of  highest  reason  may  by  times  overlook  the  dis- 
tinctive characteristics  and  laws  of  the  physical  world,  but 
such  is  a  mere  incident.  An  untenable  theory  of  inspira- 
tion does  not  dismiss  the  supernatural.  An  untenable 
philosophy  based  upon  separation  rather  than  distinction 
does  not  carry  the  supernatural  with  it  into  the  discard. 

The  issue  then  between  the  natural  and  supernatural, 


THE  KELIGIOST  OF  SCIENCE 

when  clearly  stated,  is  the  relation  hetween  the  facts  of 
physical  knowledge  and  the  facts  of  super-physical  knowl- 
edge. It  is  the  relating  in  our  thinking  of  two  sorts  of 
knowledge  and  experience.  It  is  relating  facts  and 
values.  Our  physical  existence  is  part  of  a  larger  physical 
world  to  whose  laws  and  workings  we  are  subject  but  by 
which  we  are  not  controlled.  Our  personal  (spiritual)  ex- 
istence is  part  of  a  spiritual  universe  whose  laws  and 
workings  we  are  subject  to  and  which  if  we  will  may  be- 
come in  us  immortal  existence.  These  two  are  not  sep- 
arate— except  in  bad  philosophy.  The  Christian  religion 
reveals  its  universality  and  rationality  when  it  looks  upon 
life  as  a  unit  physical  and  spiritual,  here  and  hereafter. 
Eor  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath  seen  cannot 
love  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen.  The  life  and  character 
achieved  in  the  now  differs  only  in  degree  from  its  full- 
ness in  the  then. 

Unity,  it  must  be  noted,  is  not  uniformity  but  related 
diversity.  Unity  and  diversity  are  correlatives.  There 
could  be  no  unity  without  diversity,  for  it  takes  two  always 
to  make  one.  If  all  colors  were  blue  there  would  be  no 
color.  If  God  were  one  in  any  pan-psychic  sense  he  would 
not  be  God.  Pantheism,  the  natural  result  of  over-sim- 
plification, in  its  endeavor  to  dissolve  diversity  dissolves 
merely  its  own  self  into  the  naive  simplicity  of  its  own 
thinking. 

These  considerations  give  the  setting  for  observing  the 
difference  between  natural  law  and  supernatural  law 
while  both  are  phases  of  our  unified  life.  The  difference 
is  between  quantity  and  quality.  In  physics  the  weight 
of  the  blow  as  cause  determines  the  distance  the  ball  will 

80 


THE  SACKED  BIBLE  OF  NATUKE 

travel  as  effect.  This  quantitative  causation  conception 
was  carried  by  the  Babylonians  and  early  Hebrews  over 
into  their  judgments  of  justice  and  right  and  even  for- 
giveness. Advanced  thinking  and  observation  upon  life's 
experiences  has  shown  that  this  is  not  the  truth.  The 
law  of  quality  prevails  in  the  higher  (supernatural)  life 
of  mankind. 

This  law  of  quality  is  seen  to-day  in  our  law  courts  when 
motive  is  considered  and  given  a  large  place.  It  is  seen 
in  judgments  of  leniency  or  extreme  harshness.  It  is 
manifest  in  the  joyous  relief  from  the  strain  of  life  which 
comes  to  those  whose  citizenship  is  in  the  Higher  World 
as  well  as  in  this  one.  The  quality  of  mercy  is  not 
strained.  It  is  only  in  the  freedom  of  and  the  anticipated 
attainment  of  the  eternal  values  that  men  come  to  know 
real  life.  For  life  in  the  supernatural  moves  in  an  at- 
mosphere of  forgiveness,  willing  self-sacrifice,  going  the 
second  mile,  exceeding  duty,  in  short  of  being  the  cause 
itself  and  not  its  illustration. 

Then  the  life  centered  in  the  supernatural  world  of 
values  and  personal  satisfaction  is  the  one  which  is  mo- 
tived and  lived  from  before  and  not  within  the  iron-bound 
scheme  of  necessity.  Truth  is  immediately  known,  not 
from  nature  primarily,  but  when  the  person  com.es  to  know 
the  Supreme  Personality.  Civilization,  which  is  increas- 
ingly qualitative,  individual  worth  and  social  relations  are 
the  product  of  an  increased  insight  into,  and  appreciation 
of,  the  real  qualities  of  the  Supreme  Personality  and  the 
real  character  of  the  ideal  man.  This  is  why  civilization 
improves  where  Christianity  prevails:  men  see  the  ideal. 
Jesus'  sacrifice  of  himself  for  his  principles  accomplished 

81 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

more  by  the  further  revelation  of  his  character  and  spirit 
than  it  did  by  any  appeasing  of  the  wrath  of  God  or  by 
satisfying  any  preconceived  idea  of  divine  justice.  One 
man  of  the  qualitative  personality  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is 
a  cause  where  effect  can  hardly  be  traced.  Can  it  be  said 
that  value  in  the  strict  sense  applies  to  things  at  all  ? 

Consideration  of  things  supernatural  will  include  also 
the  must  of  life.  There  are  two  sorts  of  must.  I  must 
eat  or  die  because  of  natural  law.  I  must  be  a  brother  of 
man  or  die  because  of  supernatural  law.  The  first  kind 
is  the  must  of  natural  necessity:  the  second  is  of  choice. 
Under  the  first  we  submit  because  of  force:  under  the 
second  because  of  joy.  The  first  begins  and  ends  in  itself: 
the  second  is  just  the  beginning,  since  the  end  lies  far 
beyond  and  is  measured  by  eternal  value. 

Naturalism  in  its  religious  relations  thus  seems  to  point 
to  abject  failure.  Nature's  revelations  are  too  limited  to 
cover  the  whole  of  life.  If  men  were  dependent  upon  these 
revelations  alone,  then  not  only  would  we  never  have  re- 
ceived the  knowledge  of  values  but  also  knowledge  of  our- 
selves. For  nature  could  hardly  reveal  the  consciousness 
of  personality  nor  that  higher  standard  which  as  an  urge 
and  a  lure  draws  men  onward  and  upward  into  eternal 
attainment  and  immortality.  The  only  logical  thinker 
here  is  the  one  who  capitalizes  Nature,  but  he  of  course 
does  this  illogically  and  overworks  an  analogy.  Thus  instead 
of  revealing  the  higher  values  this  philosophy  denies  their 
very  existence.  Nature  must  be  double-minded  if  it  re- 
veals itself  as  negating  supreme  human  values  yet  gives 
to  man  the  spirit  to  rebel  against  the  authoritative  revela- 
tions. This  very  inner  rebellion  against  the  plea  for  the 

12 


THE  SACRED  BIBLE  OF  NATURE 

natural  condemns  it.  It  is  a  rational  rebellion,  too,  for 
the  system  has  no  place  for  good  and  evil,  character,  moral 
values,  or  human  progress.  It  makes  the  end  of  life  the 
extinction  of  all  spiritual  life.  It  stands  still  while  men 
move  on.  It  kills  all  endeavor,  for  there  is  little  courage 
to  strive  and  achieve  if  we  individually  and  as  a  race 
finally  sink  back  into  the  eternally  changing,  changeless 
substance.  In  such  thinking  there  is  no  profit  for  re- 
ligion. 

The  incisive  observation  of  Hudson  may  sum  up  the 
matter.  "Such  a  world-view  requires  a  moral  valor  that 
it  cannot  give."  This  revelation  of  nature  calls  for  cour- 
age for  the  sake  of  being  courageous.  For  the  truth  to 
which  men  must  be  loyal  irrespective  of  whither  it  leads, 
is  a  world-view  full  of  negations  and  materialistic.  It 
surely  therefore  requires  more  than  natural  courage  either 
to  try  to  hold  this  view  and  the  Christian  truth  at  the  same 
time  or  to  try  to  live  superior  to  the  natural  processes 
when  the  moral  and  religious  life  is  fated  after  millennia 
of  struggle  to  disappear.  But  truth  should  command 
better  credentials. 


CHAPTEK  SIX 

THE   CREED BEASON 

THE  items  of  the  creed  of  the  science-theologian  may 
be  conveniently  reduced  to  two:  Reason  and  Evolution. 
These  two  he  believes  in  firmly  and  completely.  The 
term  reason  may  sum  up  three  related  beliefs :  the  ration- 
ality of  the  world;  the  practical  identity  of  science  and 
reason;  the  rationalistic  method  of  interpretation.  We 
will  examine  these  items  of  the  creed  in  themselves  and 
in  their  relation  to  the  religious  beliefs  based  thereupon. 

The  principle  of  the  rationality  of  the  world  expresses 
the  belief  that  nature  is  uniform  in  all  her  ways  and  do- 
ings, that  in  the  sequence  of  changes  there  is  consistency 
and  coherency,  and  that  all  these  processes  "are  compre- 
hensible by  the  human  mind."  Such  a  belief  is  necessary 
to  science  where  observation  and  experiment  touch  only 
the  empirical  objects.  Without  this  faith  there  could  be 
no  law,  since  chance  is  not  properly  cared  for.  Likewise, 
without  this  substructure,  scientific  knowledge  could  never 
pass  beyond  the  stage  of  the  passing  observation  or  ex- 
periment. 

So  far  this  creed  is  universal  and  not  specifically  scien- 
tific. The  man  on  the  street  orders  his  daily  life  on  the 
accepted  or  reasoned  belief  that  the  sun  will  be  seen  to- 
morrow and  nothing  will  occur  in  haphazard  fashion. 
Every  man  takes  for  granted  continuous,  ordered,  coherent, 
natural  action.  But  when  the  reason  for  this  belief  is 

84 


THE  CREED— KEASON 

sought  another  phase  of  the  situation  appears.  Physical 
scientists  rationalize  their  faith  by  declaring  that  "the 
world  is  an  adjusted,  regularly  working  system  character- 
ized everywhere  by  invariable,  causal  relations."  This 
characterization  is  the  conclusion  based  upon  the  analogy 
of  the  mechanism.  Then  rationality  of  the  world  means 
this  orderly,  adjusted,  invariable  working  system.  Log- 
ical, causal  sequence  is  rationality.  The  more  recent 
scientists,  the  biologist,  the  sociologist,  and  psychologist 
offer  a  different  type  of  rationalization  of  their  faith. 
This  is,  that  it  can  be  observed  in  the  workings  of  nature 
that  certain  organs  or  organisms  seem  to  have  been  so  ra- 
tionally designed  as  to  realize  certain  definite  ends.  The 
stomach  digests  everything  that  comes  into,  it  but  never 
digests  itself.  The  horse's  mouth  was  made  for  the  bit 
and  nature  is  equipped  with  powers  of  self-healing  and 
self-preservation.  Wherever  therefore  there  is  discovered 
in  the  natural  world  evidences  of  objects  which  exist  for 
certain  ends  or  adjustments  which  seem  fitted  to  bring 
about  certain  ends  this  is  rationality.  Evidences  of  pur- 
pose reveal  rationality. 

There  is  a  third  way  of  rationalizing  faith  which 
speaks  in  terms  of  value  mainly.  Suppose  the  eye  is  pur- 
posed to  see,  what  is  the  value  of  the  whole  process  ?  Sup- 
pose the  body  is  fitted  to  ward  off  disease  and  self-heal, 
what  about  it  ?  Does  this  fitting  of  organ  and  end  serve 
any  end  of  value?  Our  thinking  always  submits  all 
knowledge  to  judgment  in  relation  to  a  further  value. 
There  is  a  value  in  itself  (relative)  and  a  value  beyond 
itself  (final)  in  all  things.  The  highest  form  of  ration- 
ality is  then  discovered  when  the  value  of  this  present  life 

85 


THE  EELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

and  this  present  natural  world  is  seen  to  be  in  the  contri- 
bution to  the  immortal  life  of  man. 

The  result  of  these  modes  of  thinking  is  that  there  are 
present  to-day  three  outstanding  definitions  of  rationality 
which  are  general  and  are  applied  to  the  whole  of  the 
objects  of  thought  and  life.  These  are:  orderliness,  pur- 
pose, value.  The  science-theologians  use  the  first,  a  few 
refer  to  the  second,  all  reject  the  third.  There  is  ration- 
ality only  where  natural  causation  and  logical  coherence 
are  manifest,  with  purpose  as  opposed  to  chance. 

These  facts  give  the  means  for  evaluating  this  creed  of 
the  rationality  of  the  world  in  its  relation  to  religion.  The 
creed  as  used  contains  two  self-limitations.  It  narrows 
rationality  practically  to  logic  and  orderliness  and  thus 
prevents  the  would-be  theologian  from  dealing  with  reli- 
gion in  any  adequate  manner.  It  also  applies  a  standard 
of  rationality,  which  is  at  home  in  the  physical  world  to 
the  higher  spheres  of  life,  where  such  is  not  at  home,  or 
wholly  inapplicable.  These  two  limitations  are  vital  and 
should  be  restraining.  But  they  are  not.  Proceeding 
from  the  conception  of  reason  as  orderliness,  and  perhaps 
purpose,  the  "thinking"  scientist  identifies  this  reason 
with  science,  and  also  identifies  the  rationality  of  the 
physical  world  with  that  of  religion.  When  then  he  es- 
says to  use  the  Bible  and  religion  in  his  process  of  ration- 
alization he  abandons  the  scientific  method  for  the  ration- 
alistic. Both  this  method,  and  this  contention  that  science 
and  reason  are  identical,  may  be  seriously  questioned. 

That  the  religion  of  science  is  rational  and  the  only 
rational  one  is  the  claim.  The  bases  of  the  contention 
are,  that  while  religion  is  related  to  emotion,  science  ap- 

86 


THE  CREED— SEASON 

peals  to  reason,  and  that  scientific  knowledge,  being  iden- 
tical with  rationality  must  be  the  judge. 

Tor  a  concrete  exposition  of  this  view  we  may  again 
turn  to  a  work  referred  to  above.1  "The  appeal  of  science 
is  chiefly  to  reason  ...  of  religion  to  emotion.  .  .  .  Rea- 
son, alone,  that  is,  the  power  of  generalization  and  abstract 
thought  is  wholly  limited  to  man.  .  .  .  Reason  and  con- 
sciousness disclose  to  man  the  scientific  knowledge  of  the 
physical  world,  the  problem  of  evil  and  the  real  solution  of 
the  problem.  The  most  intelligent  types  of  men  may  find 
relief  from  Tight  ings  within  and  fears  without/  in 
science  or  philosophy,  but  the  great  mass  of  mankind  .  .  . 
have  found  relief  in  religion."  Religion  thus  ministers 
to  human  comfort  and  happiness,  but  moving  as  it  does 
within  the  sphere  of  human  needs  and  desires,  it  can  never 
develop  a  faith  which  can  satisfy  the  reason.  Religious 
thinking,  then,  to  satisfy  rational  thinking  men  must  be 
made  rational,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  saying  it  must 
become  scientific.  Thus  faith  must  be  guided  by  knowl- 
edge, emotion  by  reason.  Emotion  develops  a  sort  of  intel- 
lectuality of  its  own  which,  however,  is  not  reason  but 
may  be  controlled  by  reason.  A  religion  of  science  is  there- 
fore religion  made  rational  and  satisfying  to  the  reason 
of  intelligent  men. 

The  basal,  assumed  fact  in  this  argument  is  the  defini- 
tion of  religion  as  emotion  and  as  the  product  of  emotion. 
This  is  now  a  very  widespread  view  of  the  character  and 
origin  of  religion.  It,  however,  is  a  definition  and  a  view, 
the  truth  of  which  may  not  be  accepted  uncritically. 

i  Conklin,  "The  Direction  of  Human  Evolution,"  pp.  161,  162-167. 
In  part  Summary. 

87 


v 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

Keligion  is  assumed  to  be  a  derived  product  because  the 
theory  of  evolution  means  or  teaches  it.  But  this  teach- 
ing does  not  establish  the  fact.  It  is  basing  a  conclusion 
upon  an  assumption.  Moreover,  it  is  arguing  in  a  circle 
because  evolution  is  stated  as  a  theory  and  then  a  sequence 
is  outlined  from  instinct  or  emotion  to  religion  which  is 
both  the  product  and  the  proof  of  the  theory.  This  re- 
moves any  real  ground  for  assuming  that  religion  is  a 
derived  product.  The  historical  facts  relative  to  religion 
are,  that  it  is  an  absolute,  it  is  a  parent,  it  creates,  it  is 
independent  in  action,  it  evaluates  and  eschews  all  natural 
limitations,  it  is  primary  and  not  secondary. 

The  psychological  background  which  admits  of  a  separa- 
tion between  reason  and  emotion  assumes  the  lack  of  unity 
in  the  self.  It  assumes  an  independence  of  the  different 
phases  of  selfhood  suggestive  of  the  working  of  the  philoso- 
phy and  psychology  based  on  the  atomic  theory.  Just  as 
the  atom  was  defined  as  absolute,  independent  and  self- 
existent,  independent  of  any  relations,  so  feeling  or  emo- 
tion at  one  time  and  reason  or  intellect  at  another  are  so 
conceived.  The  distinction  between  intellect  and  reason, 
on  the  basis  of  generalization  and  abstract  thinking,  is  too 
fanciful  for  serious  consideration.  The  psychology,  on 
the  other  hand,  which  proceeds  from  observed  facts  rela- 
tive to  the  human  self  has  no  place  for  this  theoretical 
separateness  of  feeling.  The  human  self  is  not  a  made-up 
collection  or  assemblage  of  feelings,  intellect  and  will: 
these  three  are  modes  of  expression.  And  no  person  ever 
expresses  himself  in  any  one  of  these  phases  alone  or 
singly.  The  whole  self  is  present  in  all  thinking,  feeling 

88 


THE  CREED— REASON 

or  willing,  though  one  of  these  self-expressions  may  be  the 
more  prominent.  Moreover,  there  is  no  feeling  apart 
from  or  inseparable  from  its  idea.  The  intensity  or  thin- 
ness of  feeling  is  dependent  upon  the  quality  or  force  of 
the  idea  with  which  it  is  associated.  Religious  passion  is 
distinguished  not  as  a  different  kind  of  passion  or  feeling 
but  by  the  character  of  the  ideas  with  which  it  is  asso- 
ciated or  blended,  and  by  which  it  is  qualified.  Thus  the 
effort  to  relate  religion  to  feeling  and  deny  its  rationality 
rests  upon  a  false  psychology  and  philosophy. 

The  contention  is  further  disproved  by  obvious  facts. 
Hocking  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  religion  never 
takes  itself  as  a  matter  of  feeling.  It  deals  with  the  ob- 
jective much  more  than  the  subjective.  The  work  and 
teachings  of  the  great  moral  prophets  testify  to  this  gen- 
eralization. Religion  is  not  interested  in  making  men  feel 
but  rather  in  making  them  believe,  do  and  achieve.  It  is 
the  enemy  of  that  emotionalism  which  spells  selfish  enjoy- 
ment and  never  issues  in  concrete  human  and  social  bet- 
terment. The  religious  appeal  which  moves  and  creates 
religious  men  is  not  to  feeling  but  to  ideas.  There  is  a 
contagion  of  enthusiasm  but  this  emotionalism  dies  when 
the  man  behind  the  moving  enthusiasm  disappears.  The 
strength  and  continuity  of  religion  is  not  in  feeling  but  in 
ideas — faith.  All  religious  progress  comes,  not  through 
feeling  which  is  unprogressive,  but  through  ideas.  Reli- 
gious progress  is  noted  only  when  new  and  enlarged  and 
clearer  ideas  of  the  Supreme  Personality  or  the  supreme 
values  are  gained.  These  enlarging  ideas  qualify  emo- 
tion. Feeling  never  changes  or  improves  feeling — only 

89 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

thinking  and  gaining  of  knowledge  does  this.  And  that 
higher  knowledge  which  changes  men  from  being  beasts 
and  animals  into  beings  like  unto  the  Deitv  is  well  called 
Kevelation. 

Religion  has  been  described  as  the  product  and  mani- 
festation of  desire  which  is  feeling.  This  description, 
however,  is  not  based  on.  observed  fact  but  on  an  analogy. 
Animals  desire  and  find  food;  so  it  is  claimed  there  is  in 
the  human  animal  a  desire,  the  manifesto  of  which  is 
religion.  The  analogy,  however,  is  not  well  taken.  In 
animals  the  desire  when  satisfied  disappears  but  not  so 
in  religion.  The  more  men  know  of  the  noblest  life  and  of 
the  eternal  values  the  greater  is  the  desire  to  attain  in- 
creased. The  appetite  for  the  supreme  values  increases 
with  the  growing  participation.  Then,  again,  this  de- 
scription reverses  the  whole  process.  We  love  God  because 
he  first  loved  us.  Our  desires  become  prominent  when 
the  knowledge  of  the  Other  World  is  a  possession.  Men 
desire  in  proportion  to  their  appreciation  of  the  higher 
values.  That  man  is  incurably  religious,  means,  that  the 
Light  which  streams  on  him  from  the  world  of  Eternal 
Reality  ravishes  him.  Loyalty  is  not  self-compulsion  or 
mechanical  urge,  but  is  born  and  nurtured  by  the  captivat- 
ing rationality  of  the  eternal  values. 

Religion  is  of  the  heart  rather  than  of  the  head,  so  it  is 
affirmed,  because  "out  of  the  heart  are  the  issues  of  life." 
This  statement,  it  is  argued,  proves  the  emotional  ancestry 
of  religion.  But  the  distinction  here  is  not  a  psychological 
separation;  it  is  the  distinction  between  intellectual  sys- 
tems and  judgments  of  value.  Amos  noted  the  distinction 
when  he  compared  the  zealous  religious  life,  centering  in 

90 


THE  CREED— REASON 

traditional  beliefs  and  practices,  with  the  one  of  greater 
value,  which  was  being  missed.  God  cared  more  for  the 
poor  man,  who  was  compelled  to  sleep  cold,  than  for  the 
continuance  of  that  religious  institution  which  commanded 
the  coat  as  a  pledge.  So  the  Pharisee  tithed  and  did  all 
the  law,  but  omitted  those  acts,  and  failed  to  attain  unto 
that  character  which  valued  the'  need  of  the  poor  widow 
above  twenty  per  cent  interest  or  the  placing  of  Corban 
upon  a  gift.  That  religion  takes  note  of  human  sympathy 
as  well  as  of  institutions  and  systems  is  the  mark  of  its 
all-round  character. 

We  miss  the  truth,  however,  if  we  center  our  thinking 
upon  the  either-or,  instead  of  upon  head  and  heart. 
"These  (things)  ought  ye  to  have  done  and  not  to  leave 
the  other  undone."  Religion  is  both  rational  and  emo- 
tional. Study  of  the  history  of  religious  progress  shows 
that  there  comes  first  the  attainment  of  knowledge  of  the 
Other  World,  which  knowledge  is  attended  by  certain  emo- 
tional intensity.  Then  comes  enlarged  knowledge,  such 
as  of  God  and  human  destiny,  which  is  at  once  intellectu- 
alized  into  a  system  of  beliefs  and  practices  and  clothed 
with  emotion.  Then,  again,  comes  new  knowledge  which 
breaks  the  old  vessels,  dissipates  the  emotion,  creates  a  new 
set  of  beliefs  and  practices  and  immediately  attracts  emo- 
tion. So  the  history  proceeds:  idea  creates,  emotion 
drives.  The  fact  is  not  often  enough  emphasized,  that  it 
is  the  Christian  and  prophetic  teaching,  that  God  cares  for 
every  individual,  and  even  suffers  with  men,  that  produces 
our  feelings  for  the  sick,  the  poor  and  the  downtrodden. 
This  is  not  an  emotion  but  a  conviction  with  emotion. 
Those  scientists  who  have  not  this  conviction,  naturally, 

91 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

are  not  moved  by  the  sight  of  the  maimed  and  the  weak; 
so  they  call  our  Christian  care  for  the  needy  unscientific 
and  an  error. 

When,  further,  it  is  said  that  religion  is  of  the  head,  the 
reminder  comes  that  no  man  by  searching  can  find  out  God 
and  that  the  babe  knows  more  of  religion  than  the  edu- 
cated thinker.  This  latter  reference,  however,  in  its  his- 
toric setting  is  an  echo  of  the  fact  that  it  was  the  common 
people  who  heard  Jesus  gladly.  It  is  common  religious 
history  that  a  new  movement  begins  among  the  masses; 
hence  this  reference  to  the  unsophisticated  is  understand- 
able both  in  the  light  of  this  fact  and  in  the  light  of  our 
knowledge  of  the  effect  of  traditionalism  upon  men. 
There  were,  however,  others  of  the  thinking  class,  even 
priests,  who  understood  Jesus,  though  the  number  reported 
is  not  large. 

The  venture  of  an  analogy  might  be  made  in  this  con- 
nection. There  is  a  difference  between  discovery  and  in- 
vention. In  discovery  new  light  for  which  we  have  not 
labored  and  for  which  we  have  not  searched  dawns  upon 
the  mind.  Sometimes  this  light  comes  all  of  a  sudden; 
at  other  times,  when  we  think  we  are  approaching  the 
exact  opposite;  and  in  a  few  cases  it  comes  by  reasoning, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  new  planet.  When,  then,  the  new 
light  or  truth  has  come,  inventive  genius  turns  it  to  ac- 
count or  enshrines  it  in  machines  or  institutions.  So  in 
the  attainment  of  religious  knowledge.  The  history  of  the 
great  religions  reveals  a  Hero  or  Leader,  who,  having  re- 
ceived a  revelation  seeks  to  bring  all  men  into  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Truth.  The  new  discovery  is  domiciled  in 
beliefs,  creeds,  institutions  (inventions  like  engines,  bat- 

92 


THE  CREED—REASON 

teries,  stoves  for  electricity),  and  through  these  men  are 
instructed  and  transformed  by  the  new  knowledge.  There 
is  one  point,  however,  where  the  analogy  fails.  In  re- 
ligion the  creed  or  institution  often  runs  on  when  the 
electricity — the  spirit — is  absent. 

The  points,  then,  where  the  analogy  holds  are :  religious 
knowledge  is  primarily  revelation,  in  the  sense  that,  as 
the  human  self  grows  from  childhood,  there  comes  the, 
time  when  the  consciousness  of  the  Other  World  and  life's 
higher  values  dawns.  This  comes  not  in  the  sense  that  it 
is  created  by  thinking,  it  comes  in  the  ordinary  process  of 
human  thought.  In  the  course  of  living  and  thinking 
other  discoveries  are  made  (revelations).  To  outstanding 
men  and  women  epochal  revelations  come,  which,  when 
tested  in  life,  are  singled  out  as  superior.  Revelation  is 
both  epochal  and  everyday,  congested  and  continuous.  A 
superior  discovery  is  one  where  we  realize  we  have 
touched  finality.  Then  comes  the  invented  creeds,  dogmas 
and  institutions — the  necessary  dress — which  needs  to  be 
changed  with  the  growing  life.  Is  there  not  also  a  sense 
in  which  men  by  searching  find  out  God  ?  Just  as  men 
reason  from  certain  physical  facts  to  the  conclusion  that 
an  undiscovered  star  must  be  in  a  certain  location,  so  we 
reason  that  when  we  find  the  universe  rational,  our  par- 
tial knowledge  must  argue  for  the  absolute  Knower — the 
Design  argument.  Experience  then  completes  the  knowl- 
edge. 

The  vital  weakness  in  the  effort  to  reduce  religion 
to  feeling  is  the  lack  of  differentiation  in  feeling.  Paul 
was  enthusiastic  and  felt  his  religion  intensely  both  before 
and  after  his  conversion,  but  his  feelings  do  not  indicate 

93 


THE  KELIGION  OE  SCIENCE 

the  difference  between  Judaism  and  Christianity.  This 
difference  is  nowhere  discoverable  in  the  realm  of  emotion 
but  is  in  the  realm  of  religious  and  moral  knowledge. 
New  and  different  conceptions  and  experiences  of  God, 
man,  society,  sin,  salvation  mark  the  difference.  If  re- 
ligion were  emotion  then  all  religions  would  be  the  same 
and  indistinguishable  and  religious  evolution  would  be 
impossible.  There  would  be  no  religion  of  science,  for  all 
isms  would  be  identical,  except  in  lung-power. 

There  is  finally  the  oft-repeated  theory  that  the  main 
emotion  out  of  which  religion  has  evolved  is  jear.  This 
theory  is  supposedly  based  upon  historical  observation  of 
primitive  religions.  But  such  theorizing  at  once  arouses 
suspicion,  because  of  its  simplicity  and  also  because  of  the 
easy  disposal  of  the  origin  and  character  of  religion.  It 
is  rather  an  arbitrary  process  to  single  out  this  one  in- 
stinct or  emotion  when  there  are  others,  such  as  love, 
which  are  more  valuable  for  theoretical  purposes  and  just 
as  prominent  in  primitive  religion.  But  history  does  not 
disclose  any  such  a  fact.  In  one  of  the  oldest  religious 
institutions,  that  of  sacrifice,  the  earliest  form  was  the 
sacrificial  meal,  of  which,  in  the  most  friendly  relation- 
ship the  God  partook.  The  element  of  fear  was  con- 
spicuous by  its  absence.  Moreover,  early  peoples  com- 
manded their  deities  much  more  than  they  feared  them. 
The  element  of  fear  enters  religious  history  when  the 
nature  deities  came  to  hold  the  place  of  honor  and  the 
fear  of  some  aspects  of  nature  was  transferred  to  the 
deities. 

But  still  further  there  is  a  fundamental  difference  be- 
tween natural  fear  and  religious  fear.  Keligion  both 

94 


THE  CREED— REASON 

encourages  and  destroys  fear:  destroys  the  natural  and 
encourages  the  spiritual.  This  latter  is  not  physical  fear 
with  any  of  the  emotional  characteristics,  but  is  rational. 
"Lest  having  preached  to  others  I  myself  should  be  a 
castaway."  This  fear,  which  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom, 
like  all  fear,  is  determined  by  its  object.  The  physical, 
raging  lion  produces  physical  fear:  the  God  in  whose 
hands  human  destiny  lies  inspires  the  holy  fear  that  we 
by  our  ignorance  or  wilfulness  might  miss  that  destiny. 
An  interesting  bit  of  religious  biography  is  revealed  in 
the  words:  "Though  he  slay  me  yet  will  I  trust  him." 
Thus  religion,  instead  of  being  the  child  of  fear,  is  its 
master.  It  would  be  an  interesting  sidelight  upon  the 
nature  or  peculiarity  of  evolution  if  such  a  phase  of 
human  experience  as  fear  should  out  of  itself  evolve  re- 
ligion to  rule  or  destroy  itself.  Religion,  however,  both 
destroys  and  creates  fear — destroys  the  physical  and  un- 
reasoned and  creates  the  holy,  character-developing 
quality. 

The  other  phase  of  scientific  belief  in  Reason  refers 
to  the  method  of  interpretation  known  as  the  rationalistic. 
This  is  the  method  used  by  the  science-theologians  in 
their  interpretations  of  the  Bible  and  religious  history 
and  phenomena.  The  method  may  best  be  understood  by 
comparison  with  the  four  others  more  or  less  in  use  to-day. 
These  are  the  literal,  the  prooftext,  the  allegorical,  and 
the  scientific  or  the  literary  and  historical. 

The  literal  method  takes  every  word  or  statement  in  a 
literal  sense,  irrespective  of  whether  the  author  is  writing 
poetry,  is  using  a  figure  of  speech,  is  using  any  of  the  dif- 

95 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

ferent  literary  forms  of  expression  or  expresses  himself 
in  the  mode  of  thinking  of  centuries  ago.  It  ignores  the 
history  of  the  statement  and  assumes  it  is  a  direct  word 
of  God.  By  the  prooftext  the  interpreter  first  fixes  upon 
a  belief  or  judgment  and  then  goes  to  the  Bible  or  history 
of  religion  for  texts  which  prove  the  already  accepted  be- 
lief. The  allegorical  declares  that  a  writer  says  one 
thing  but  means  another.  It  is  the  business  of  the  inter- 
preter to  reveal  this  true  meaning.  The  scientific,  better 
known  as  the  Higher  Criticism,  approaches  the  Bible  by 
the  historical  and  literary  path  and  seeks  through  the 
knowledge  thus  attained  to  ascertain  the  mind  of  the 
writer.  It  aims  at  letting  the  Bible  speak  for  itself. 

In  contrast  to  these,  yet  alike  in  some  particulars,  stands 
the  rationalistic.  This  method  declares  that  there  is  a 
natural  cause  for  every  effect,  which  when  known  explains 
the  phenomenon.  It  identifies  this  causal  coherence  with 
reason  and  makes  it  the  standard  for  judgment  and  evalua- 
tion. It  declares  that  what  science  teaches  is  final  truth 
and  therefore  judges  all  things.  Thus  miracles  are  im- 
possible because  science  discovers  none  such.  That  God 
created  the  world  is  impossible  since  matter  is  eternal. 
So  this  rational  interpreter  of  the  Bible  and  religious  phe- 
nomena has  a  method  which  interprets  and  discloses  final 
wisdom. 

The  interesting  fact  which  immediately  stands  out  here 
is  that  the  scientist,  when  he  turns  theologian  abandons 
the  scientific  method  and  adopts  a  most  decidedly  unscien- 
tific and  dogmatic  one.  And  also,  that  it  is  modern  biblical 
scholarship  which  has  adopted  the  truly  scientific  method 
of  interpretation. 

96 


THE  CREED—REASON 

The  Higher  Criticism  is  this  scientific  method.  The 
modern  biblical  scholar,  before  he  will  essay  an  interpreta- 
tion of  any  part  of  the  Bible  or  any  religious  phenomenon, 
seeks  by  impartial  and  thorough  critical  study  to  know 
first  the  historical  origin  and  literary  form.  He  seeks  to 
discover  the  historical  origin  through  learning  of  the  au- 
thor and  the  times  when  a  writing  appeared.  All  think- 
ing is  primarily  organic  to  its  times.  He  will  then  seek  to 
determine  the  literary  form,  since  this  will  point  to  the 
mind  of  the  writer.  He  can  then  make  some  judgment 
of  values.  This  method  has  many  commendations  but  the 
main  one  is  that  it  gives  the  biblical  author  the  oppor- 
tunity to  speak  for  himself  and  thus  leads  nearer  to  truth. 

In  comparison  with  this  scientific  procedure  how  un- 
scientific appears  this  rationalistic!  One  of  the  reasons 
why  this  Literary  and  Historical  method  has  not  made 
headway  faster  is  because  many  have  confused  it  with  the 
rationalistic.  This  was  natural  because  it  is  called  the 
scientific.  But  once  seen  clearly  there  is  no  further  dan- 
ger of  identification. 

The  weakness  and  evils  of  this  rationalistic  method  are 
many.  It  is  pure  dogmatism — worse  than  ecclesiasticism 
could  be  guilty  of.  It  is  absolutely  unscientific,  for  there 
is  no  critical  study  and  evaluation  but  the  application  of 
a  dogmatic  standard.  There  is  no  adequate  appreciation, 
for  example,  of  the  many  phenomena  called  miracles  in 
the  Bible  but  miracle  in  general  is  dealt  with.  It  ignores 
the  historical  facts  and  values.  It  is  individualistic.  It 
bases  its  judgment  upon  a  claim  for  the  value  of  scientific 
conclusions  and  teachings  which  certainly  cannot  go  un- 
questioned. It  defines  reason  in  an  entirely  too  narrow 

97 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

fashion.  It  omits  the  very  rationalism  which  alone  ap- 
plies to  religious  knowledge.  It  applies  laws  which  are 
valid  in  mechanics  and  in  dealing  with  organisms  but 
which  cannot  be  applied  to  the  things  of  the  spirit.  It 
dogmatizes  out  of  life  much  valuable  truth. 

The  inadequacy  of  this  method  and  the  superiority  of 
the  truly  scientific  may  be  illustrated  by  reference  to  some 
of  our  outstanding  biblical  problems,  such  as  Creation,  the 
Virgin  Birth  and  the  Resurrection.  All  of  these  are  im- 
periously negated,  since  they  do  not  seem  to  be  in  agree- 
ment with  certain  scientific  doctrines.  Matter  is  eternal, 
hence  uncreated,  and  science  knows  of  no  miracles. 

Take  the  biblical  stories  of  creation.  We  refer  to  these 
again  because  the  creation  of  the  world  is  given  large 
place  in  the  writings  of  these  science-theologians.  The 
historical  facts  are  that  there  are  here  two  versions  of  an 
old  Babylonian  tradition  from  two  different  schools  of 
writers.  The  versions  do  not  agree  in  all  detail  and  the 
use  made  by  each  writer  of  the  ancient  tradition  differs 
widely.  Whether  either  writer  thought  he  was  mediating 
scientific  knowledge  is  open  to  question.  In  any  case  the 
predominating  motive  was  religious,  and  God  is  given  the 
place  of  primacy.  Theirs  is  a  philosophy  of  the  universe 
based  upon  the  primacy  of  personality.  Instead,  then,  of 
dogmatically  ruling  this  out  of  court  in  favor  of  a  phi- 
losophy which  logically  leads  to  materialism  it  would  be 
more  fair  to  show  the  two  philosophies  and  let  men  ra- 
tionally decide  which  they  prefer.  We  submit  that  it  is 
just  as  rational — to  go  no  further — to  accept  the  philoso- 
phy of  personality. 

The  story  of  a  Virgin  Birth  is  discounted  on  the  ground 

98 


THE  CREED— REASON 

that  such  is  irregular  and  irrational.  Science  knows  of 
nothing  of  the  sort.  The  historical  facts  in  the  case  are 
again  overlooked.  The  main  one  is,  that  Jesus  was  per- 
sonally known  first  and  as  a  result  of  this  knowledge  many 
could  believe  in  this  story  of  his  birth.  This  story  also  is 
one  of  the  three  or  four  ways  in  which  the  men  of  that 
time  tried  to  give  expression  to  their  faith  in  the  superior 
character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  It  is,  therefore,  an  his- 
torical attestation  to  this  basal  belief  and  care  should  be 
taken  not  to  throw  out  the  baby  with  the  dirty  water.  To 
merely  call  this  a  miracle  and  then  dispose  of  it  sum- 
marily is  to  lose  vital  historical  truth. 

The  narrative  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  is  likewise 
summarily  dealt  with,  but  with  more  dangerous  conse- 
quences. The  historical  facts  overlooked  are  very  sig- 
nificant. It  is  known  that  the  claim  of  a  resurrection  has 
been  made  for  others,  notably  of  the  Egyptian  King-God 
Osiris.  Many  cults  of  the  time  of  Jesus  were  enacting 
passion  plays  in  which  death  and  resurrection  figured 
prominently.  Some  New  Testament  writers  refer  to 
what  is  termed  the  resurrection  faith,  in  which  the  concrete 
circumstances  figure  slightly.  But  the  main  fact  is,  that 
to  the  first  believers  it  was  not  the  fact  of  a  resurrection 
which  established  their  belief  in  the  divine  character  of 
Jesus,  but  just  the  opposite.  Men  first  knew  Jesus  and 
could  then  believe  in  his  resurrection.  It  was  the  im- 
pression of  his  personality  which  made  the  resurrection 
faith  possible. 

Moreover,  there  is  a  difference  between  resurrection 
and  immortality.  The  first  of  these  is  Jewish  terminology 
and  is  based  upon  the  thinking  which  never  separated 

99 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

body  and  soul.  The  second  is  pronouncedly  Greek  and  is 
based  upon  this  separation.  Paul's  idea  is  more  Greek 
than  Jewish  or  Hebrew.  Thus  the  essential  fact  is  that 
the  impression  of  the  personality  of  Jesus  carried  men's 
faith  through  death  to  the  immortal  existence.  To  one 
shaped  by  Jewish  thinking  a  resurrection  was  necessary  to 
complete  the  intellectualization  of  the  faith.  When  these 
facts  are  overlooked,  all  too  much  is  sacrificed  by  this  ra- 
tionalistic method. 

Thus  we  are  forced  to  conclude  that  science  and  reason 
are  not  identical.  On  the  mechanical  side  of  the  uni- 
verse no  one  in  his  senses  would  deny  the  attested  descrip- 
tions of  mechanical  causation.  Likewise,  on  the  organic 
side  logical  sequence  commands  the  assent  of  reason.  But 
there  is  another  phase  of  the  universe,  the  personal,  where 
persons  are  free  and  creative  and  where  other  rational  laws 
prevail.  Judgments  of  value  are  the  final  judgments  and 
reveal  the  highest  form  of  rationality.  These  judge  even 
logical  sequence  and  the  world  of  nature  with  its  own 
laws.  And  judgments  of  values  proceed  from  the  appre- 
ciation of  the  immortality  of  personality.  Eor  surely 
man  does  not  exist  merely  as  a  solitary  observer  of  the 
great,  dramatic,  cosmic,  eternal  evolution,  to  be  finally 
swallowed  up  spurlos  verserikt. 


100 


CHAPTEK  SEVEN 

THE    CREED EVOLUTION 

THE  present  is  the  legitimate  child  of  the  past  and  will 
be  the  legitimate  mother  of  the  future.  This  is  the  ac- 
cepted definition  of  the  theory  which  has  so  profoundly 
colored  the  thinking  of  the  last  few  years.  For  the  theory 
of  evolution  seems  to  be  so  thoroughly  established  that 
few  think  it  even  necessary  to-day  to  argue  for  its  validity. 
It  is  one  of  the  scientific  conclusions  upon  which  the 
religion  of  science  is  based.  The  term  "religion  of  evolu- 
tion" is  also  being  used.  Evolution  is  called  a  fact  by  the 
over-enthusiastic,  but  to  the  more  modest  it  is  a  theory 
deemed  sufficiently  established. 

It  is  claimed  to  be  scientific  theory,  but  this  claim  needs 
some  explanation.  It  is  not  science  in  the  sense  of  pure 
science  but  is  the  scientist  as  philosopher  or  theologian. 
It  is  an  effort  at  the  systematizing  of  all  scientific  knowl- 
edge and  conclusions,  hence  is  science-philosophy.  Since 
a  system  must  be  characterized  by  comprehensiveness  and 
universality,  the  thinking  naturally  endeavors  to  cover  the 
whole  range  of  knowledge  and  knowable  objects.  The 
above  definition  is  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  admit  of 
this  universal  application. 

A  short  sketch  of  the  historical  origin  of  the  formulation 
of  the  theory  is  essential  before  a  critical  examination  may 
be  undertaken.  This  sketch  begins  with  the  theological 
teaching  over  against  which  this  modern  revival  of  ancient 

101 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

thinking  takes  its  stand.  This  is  known  as  traditional  or 
orthodox  belief. 

Orthodox  theology  states  that  the  Bible  is  the  revealed 
truth  of  God  and  is  absolutely  authoritative  upon  all  sub- 
jects and  matters.  One  of  the  revealed,  authoritative 
truths  is  that  God,  by  direct  fiat,  in  six  successive  days 
created  this  physical  world  out  of  nothing.  Another  is 
that  he  created  man  direct,  without  the  aid  of  any  inter- 
vening, natural  causation,  and  unrelated  to  the  animal 
world  in  origin.  God  the  creator  remains  external  to  this 
world  and  superior  to  it,  while  he  runs  it  and  sustains  it 
by  his  will  direct  and  uses  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  man 
whom  he  has  created.  In  so  doing  he  frequently  resorts 
to  the  use  of  miracles.  This  teaching,  being  revealed 
truth,  is  absolutely  binding  and  must  be  believed  if  men 
would  find  salvation. 

But  while  these  accepted  beliefs  remained  static  for 
years,  the  growing  human  mind  was  discovering  and 
amassing  much  new  knowledge  which  conflicted  with  them. 
The  geologist  discovered  evidence  which  pointed  to  a 
greater  antiquity  of  this  natural  world  than  Ussher's  date 
of  4004  B.C.  declared  to  be  the  fact  in  the  matter.  Then 
came  the  formulation  of  such  generalizations  as  the  con- 
servation of  matter  and  energy  which  conflicted  with  the 
teaching  concerning  creation.  Then  the  philosophical 
background  of  thinking  changed  from  individualism  to 
universalism,  carrying  with  it  the  practical  abandonment 
of  the  atomic  theory.  The  conception  of  law  expanded 
into  the  generalizations,  the  postulates  of  the  uniformity 
of  nature  and  the  rationality  of  the  universe.  Then  the 
scientific  thinking  settled  quite  firmly  upon  nature  as  the 

102 


THE  CKEED  —  EVOLUTION 

great  fundamental  reality.  This  conclusion  completed 
the  clash  by  eliminating  the  need  of  any  such  hypothesis  as 
God. 

Then  arose  the  tendency  toward  compromise.  The 
general  position  was  taken  that  science  and  religion  are 
not  enemies  and  would  never  seem  to  be  if  each  would 
keep  to  its  own  domain  and  do  its  distinctive  work.  The 
right-thinking  man  could  hold  the  conclusions  and  the- 
ories of  both  science  and  the  religious  teachers  and  feel  no 
sense  of  disharmony.  But  far-seeing  thinkers  perceived 
that  this  effort  at  harmonization  of  a  real  duality  was  too 
superficial,  for  science  was  becoming  science-theology  and 
was  assuming  the  air  of  dogmatic  authority. 

Then  came  the  rebirth  of  the  idea  of  evolution — organic 
evolution.  The  immediate  cause  seems  to  have  been  the 
observation  by  Darwin  of  selective  breeding  employed  by 
horsemen.  The  survival  of  the  fittest  he  then  conjectured 
proved  the  theory  of  organic  evolution.  Since  his  day  his 
proof  has  been  quite  generally  rejected  but  the  theory  he 
brought  into  modern  thinking  has  lived  on. 

The  modern  statement  then  of  the  theory  is  that  the 
world  in  which  we  live,  organic  and  inorganic,  is  not  static 
but  the  result  of  natural  processes  working  throughout  the 
ages.  Present  forms  of  plants,  animals,  men  are  the  lineal 
descendants  of  ancestors,  on  the  whole  somewhat  simpler, 
and  these  are  descended  from  forms  yet  simpler  extending 
back  to  the  infinite  beginning.  Selections  of  beginnings 
range  from  the  firemist,  protoplasm,  the  planetesimal  the- 
ory to  substance  or  God-substance. 

The  working  principles  or  ideas  of  the  theory  are:  the 
universe,  organic  and  inorganic,  has  had  a  history  which 

103 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

may  be  fairly  clearly  written ;  this  may  be  written  of  the 
past  on  the  basis  of  the  knowledge  of  the  present ;  the  facts, 
principles,  conclusions,  postulates,  laws  of  science  are  the 
data  for  compiling  this  history ;  the  universe  is  organically 
related;  change,  orderly  and  progressive  rules;  there  has 
been  and  will  continue  to  be  this  orderly  continuous  eternal 
change;  each  new  thing  arises  naturally  and  organically 
out  of  its  precedent  cause ;  different  species  of  animals  and 
plants  were  not  created  as  different  types  but  they  have 
gradually  changed  by  a  progressive  modification  until  each 
existing  species  is  the  last  surviving  branch  or  twig  on  the 
biological  tree;  the  movement  of  evolution  is  in  the  main 
not  cyclical  but  in  a  straight  line;  the  symbolical  figure, 
"the  web  of  life,"  is  the  best  description  we  can  employ; 
the  evolutionary  process,  while  orderly  and  continuous 
and  without  any  breaks,  yet  reveals  variety  in  the  move- 
ment; the  purpose  in  this  world-process  must  be  sought 
in  itself  and  not  external  to  itself.  There  are  no  breaks 
or  special  introductions  into  this  all-embracing  system ;  in 
general,  the  evolution  is  from  the  lower  and  simpler  to 
the  higher  and  more  complex;  this  evolutionary  history 
embraces  the  story  of  the  origin  and  development  of  every- 
thing, of  the  physical  world,  plant  and  animal  life,  human 
life,  society,  morality,  idealism,  politics,  literature,  beliefs, 
religion;  evolution  is  the  universal  explanation  of  all 
things. 

The  mode  of  introduction  of  the  theory  has  been  to 
assume  its  validity  and  then  proceed  to  prove  it  so  that  it 
might  advance  from  theory  to  fact.  Darwin  thought  he 
had  produced  sufficient  proof.  Since  then  the  prooftext 
method  of  selecting  usable  data  has  been  followed  and  the 

104 


THE  CREED—  EVOLUTION 

conclusion  arrived  at  is  that  it  works.  This  pragmatic 
argument  seems  to  be  considered  sufficient.  The  fact  is 
that  the  comprehensiveness  of  the  theory,  its  apparent  sim- 
plicity, the  richer  view  of  nature  it  gives,  the  lack  of  any 
clear  distinction  between  evolution  and  relation,  and  the 
note  of  certainty  with  which  it  has  been  proclaimed,  have 
given  it  such  wide  acceptance  that  proof  is  not  necessary. 
The  growing  literalism  of  our  day  has  not  been  critical. 

There  is,  however,  now  a  change  of  feeling.  The  dog- 
matic spirit  of  certain  science  leaders  has  prejudiced  de- 
cidedly their  claim  to  leadership.  The  extremes  to  which 
the  science-theologians  have  gone  with  their  teachings  of 
science  and  evolution  has  compelled  even  those  of  liberal 
tendencies  to  become  critical.  The  manifest  ignorance  of 
many  of  these  would-be  philosophers  and  theologians  of 
philosophy  and  religion  has  aroused  to  action  not  only  phi- 
losophers but  even  certain  men  of  science  themselves. 
Then  the  manifest  results  of  the  religion  of  science  are 
becoming  so  clearly  visible,  especially  in  the  influence  upon 
the  student  outlook,  that  a  critical  examination  of  this 
theory  is  necessary. 

To  begin  with,  let  us  clear  away  some  of  the  accretions 
with  which  exuberance  and  sentimentality  have  overloaded 
the  theory.  Evolution  is  a  theory  and  not  a  fact.  It  did 
not  come  out  of  heaven  on  a  silver  platter  but  according 
to  its  own  teaching  is  the  product  of  itself,  for  it  arose  at 
a  definite  time  and  out  of  definite  historical  conditions. 
The  capital  E-volution,  the  product  of  the  hypostasis  of  an 
abstraction,  is  the  work  of  over-zealous  friends.  It  is  not 
so  perfect  as  to  be  standardized  because  there  are  varieties 
of  evolutionists.  Being  a  theory  it  cannot  with  fairness 

105 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

be  said  to  teach  the  varieties  of  teachings  ascribed  to  it.  It 
is  not  science  but  speculation  based  upon  certain  observa- 
tions of  nature  and  man  and  certain  metaphysical  dogmas 
and  assumptions.  It  is  the  scientist,  advanced  from  prac- 
tical labor  into  the  realm  of  "thinking,"  working  with 
mental  concepts  instead  of  with  the  needle  and  the  test- 
tube. 

Some  general  criticisms  may  be  first  summarized.  The 
law  of  evolution  cannot  take  account  of  good  or  bad,  high 
or  low.  It  does  not  describe  or  explain  the  method  of 
change  of  one  species  to  another.  It  gives  no  adequate 
explanation  of  how  or  why  each  type  has  maintained  its 
continued  existence.  To  say  that  the  possession  of  certain 
attributes  has  given  an  organism  advantage  over  its  com- 
petitors is  an  argument  after  the  fact  and  really  says  noth- 
ing. There  is  no  universal  law  that  simple  types  change 
to  complex  ones,  as  the  observed  knowledge  of  microbes 
and  bacilli  proves.  The  different  theories  of  the  cause  of 
evolution  throw  the  whole  thinking  into  confusion.  There 
is  no  scientific  basis  for  calling  complexity  of  function  a 
higher  form  of  life.  This  is  subjective  interpretation 
and  not  objective  observation. 

The  theory  would  make  evolution  absolutely  continuous, 
yet  it  has  its  breaks.  There  is,  on  one  side,  the  non-moral 
development  of  the  universe  which  is  continuous,  while 
within  this  or  related  to  it  is  the  moral  evolution  terminat- 
ing in  man.  The  effort  to  avoid  inconsistency  or  the  use 
of  a  miracle,  by  depositing  morality  in  the  inorganic  and 
mechanical  sides  of  the  universe  is  a  device  of  little  mo- 
ment. This  break  from  the  mechanical,  fixed,  necessary, 
continuous  evolution  to  the  evolution  which  terminates  in 

106 


THE  CREED— EVOLUTION 

man  has  never  been  successfully  coped  with.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  most  evolutionists  deal  with  two  differing  evolu- 
tions. The  one  is  ceaseless,  continuous  and  creative,  while 
the  other  has  terminated  in  man.  Or,  from  another  angle, 
the  one  is  a  course  marked  by  eternal  struggle  and  con- 
flict, in  which  there  is  "death  to  the  vanquished  and  to  the 
victor  life's  bitter  spoils,"  while  the  other  is  a  "process  of 
more  and  more  effective  cooperation." 

The  entrance  of  the  scientist  into  the  new  field  of  theory 
and  speculation  naturally  created  a  new  "universe  of  dis- 
course." The  generalization  that  the  present  is  the  legiti- 
mate child  of  the  past  and  will  be  the  legitimate  mother 
of  the  future  is  simple  and  comprehensive ;  but  its  mental 
workability  demands  a  restatement  in  more  definite  scien- 
tific terminology.  This  need  is  met  by  the  use  of  the 
terms  organism  and  organic.  Some  speak  of  mechanical 
organism,  which  is  too  manifest  an  absurdity  to  be  con- 
sidered. The  symbol  organism  which  is  applicable,  for 
example,  to  the  human  body,  by  reasoning  from  analogy, 
is  extended  to  cover  the  universe.  If  then  the  whole  uni- 
verse is  an  organism,  in  which  every  part  is  organically 
related  to  every  other  and  to  the  whole,  the  mental  frame- 
work for,  evolution  is  constructed.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  analogy  is  not  well  chosen,  the  theory  is  crippled  at 
its  very  inception. 

How  far  may  this  analogy  be  applied?  The  numan 
body  as  an  organism  is  a  part  of  the  world  and  it  is  always 
dangerous  reasoning  to  proceed  from  the  part  to  the  whole. 
The  argument  from  analogy  demands  initial  likeness,  but 
this  one  fails  utterly  when  the  mechanical,  the  inorganic 
and  the  freedom  phases  of  the  universe  are  to  be  considered. 

107 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

The  symbol  organism  may  apply  in  the  field  of  the  origin 
of  species,  but  there  arises  considerable  strain  when  a  valid 
place  is  sought  for  it  in  consideration  of  changes  in  the 
solar  system.  The  strain  is  likewise  severe  when  applica- 
tion is  made  to  changes  in  the  world  where  the  human  mind 
and  will  change  and  construct  in  obedience  to  a  desired 
end.  Likewise  when  application  is  made  to  mechanisms. 

There  is  no  ideal  organism.  Reasoning  by  analogy 
usually  overlooks  this  fact  and  proceeds  as  though  there 
were.  The  process  selects  one  or  more  attributes  or  quali- 
ties of  a  certain  organism  and  then  etherealizes  or  at- 
tenuates the  attribute  so  as  to  effect  easy  workability. 
This  is  a  convenient  method  in  system-making  and  has  its 
legitimate  uses.  But  in  the  case  of  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion the  limitations  are  not  heeded.  Here  the  organism 
is  idealized  to  cover  the  whole  variegated  universe. 

In  the  use  of  this  symbol  distinction  is  not  clearly  made 
between  the  universe  as  an  organism  and  the  organic 
phases  of  the  universe.  The  facts  of  interrelation,  inter- 
dependence, contiguous  interaction  may  be  discovered  in 
the  study  of  organisms,  and  also  of  some  mechanisms ;  but 
these  observations  can  be  made  only  when  we  are  viewing 
this  phase  of  the  universe.  From  another  angle  action  at 
a  distance  is  observable.  Science  also  speaks  of  inertia, 
of  a  mass  of  dead  things  which  are  only  acted  upon.  Thus 
observation  of  a  phase  is  falsely  given  as  a  fact  concerning 
the  whole. 

All  the  points  in  the  analogy  are  not  used,  yet  the  appli- 
cation of  the  symbol  is  made  to  the  universe.  There  are 
those  who  see,  for  example  in  the  case  of  the  human  body, 
that  there  is  a  purpose  evident  in  its  existence  and  also 

108 


THE  CEEED—  EVOLUTION 

that  we  use  it  to  serve  our  own  conscious  ends.  The 
analogy  here  points  plainly  to  the  divine  mind  which  uses 
this  physical  world  to  serve  a  divine  end,  and  shapes  the 
body  to  fulfill  its  purposes.  This  application  the  evolution- 
ists not  only  overlook  but  deny  the  validity  thereof.  To 
them  matter  is  eternal,  and  the  physical  world  self-existent 
with  motion  and  development  entirely  from  within.  Some 
thinkers  try  to  maintain  purpose  and  God  while  holding 
to  these  fundamentals  and  seek  to  find  a  place  within  the 
selfmoving  world  for  both.  When,  however,  we  look  for 
either  they  are  but  chimeras  of  the  imagination. 

The  critical  examination  then  of  the  use  of  this  analogy 
reveals  the  fact,  that  the  same  organism  in  the  hands  of 
different  thinkers  can  be  used  to  argue  by  analogy,  exactly 
opposite  views.  This  shows  that  the  theory  of  organic  evo- 
lution, while  applicable  to  some  phases  of  the  universe 
cannot  be  extended  to  cover  all.  What  evolutionary 
thinkers  really  use  in  their  thinking  is  the  fact,  that  a  uni- 
verse to  be  such  must  on  the  side  of  its  changes  and  variety 
reveal  interrelation.  Hence  it  is  the  idea,  relation,  rather 
than  organism  which  is  used. 

The  theory  of  evolution  makes  much  more  use,  however, 
of  metaphysical  concepts  than  it  does  of  this  analogy.  The 
basal  one  is  matter.  Much  thinking  has  been  done  in  the 
effort  to  define  the  constitution  of  matter.  Matter  or  sub- 
stance is  the  final  reality — the  world  stuff.  It  is  eternal. 
It  changes  but  with  neither  loss  nor  gain.  The  theory  of 
evolution  then  deals  with  this  unchanging  reality,  which 
is,  however,  present  in  all  changes.  This  fundamental 
reality  is  the  changeless  as  to  quantity  in  the  midst  of  the 
continuous,  eternal,  creative  evolution. 

109 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

It  will  be  apparent  at  once  that  the  character  of  the 
definition  of  this  fundamental  reality  will  determine  the 
character  of  the  conclusions  reached  and  of  the  theory  of 
evolution  based  thereupon.  When  defined  as  material  the 
logical  outcome  is  materialism,  as  seen  in  Haeckel.  If  de- 
fined as  mere  seeming  while  mind  or  spirit  is  the  funda- 
mental, then  the  outcome  is  Berkleyian  idealism.  If  an  ef- 
fort is  made  to  straddle  and  it  be  called  God-substance, 
then  we  have  a  Bergsonian  vitalism  which  has  been  judged 
both  materialism  and  idealism.  The  one  fact  that  seems 
clear  to  many  thinkers  is  that  the  natural  goal  of  the  evo- 
lutionist is  materialism  as  long  as  the  eternal  constitution 
of  matter  is  maintained.  The  efforts  of  these  modern 
writers  to  refute  this  fact  seem  to  establish  it  all  the  more 
firmly. 

Not  all  evolutionists,  however,  engage  in  this  task  of 
characterizing  the  ultimate  reality.  They  are  content  to 
trace  a  line  back  from  present  complexity  to  more  primi- 
tive simplicity  and  then  back  into  the  unknown.  Science 
it  is  claimed  covers  the  knowledge  of  all  that  is  known  but 
beyond  lies  this  unknown.  There  is  no  possibility  either 
that  this  can  be  known  though  men  may  continue  to  specu- 
late. Speculations,  however,  do  not  affect  the  truth  of 
evolution. 

In  this  reasoning  there  is  a  fatal  weakness.  It  is  an  il- 
lustration of  the  method  of  system-making  by  reduction. 
All  thinking  aims  at  simplification  and  seeks  to  arrive  at 
concepts  so  general  that  a  multitude  of  details  may  be  con- 
veniently subsumed  and  related  under  and  to  one  such 
general.  Thus  the  law  of  gravity  is  a  convenient  generali- 
zation. But  this  process  of  thought  takes  on  a  peculiar 

110 


THE  CREED— EVOLUTION 

form  by  times.  A  general  concept  is  declared  and  this 
general  is  then  defended  by  the  process  of  reducing  either 
to  insignificance  or  to  something  else  everything  in  the 
universe.  In  philosophy  we  observe  the  absolute  idealist 
reducing  the  physical  world  to  a  shadow  so  that  he  may 
maintain  his  view  of  the  universe.  In  modern  thinking  we 
meet  the  thesis  that  society  is  the  enduring  reality  and  ac- 
cordingly the  individual  is  reduced  to  the  shadow ;  or  the 
individual  is  this  eternal  reality  and  society  is  reduced  to 
the  chimera ;  or  instinct  is  the  real,  hence  intellect  is  sec- 
ondary ;  in  short,  practically  everything  to-day  from  ideal- 
ism, morality,  religion  and  man  himself  is  reduced  to  fit  a 
view  of  the  world  with  its  special  definitions  of  the  real. 

The  fatal  weakness  then  of  this  theory  of  evolution  is 
that  the  general  to  which  all  things  is  reduced  is  either  an 
undifferentiated  something  or  the  unknown.  With  such 
a  general  the  lines  running  back  through  an  indefinite 
period  of  organic  evolution,  physical,  mental,  social  or 
what-not,  can  all  find  a  common  melting  place — in  the  un- 
known. Evolution  can  then  be  named  the  science  of 
sciences  or  the  queen  of  the  sciences.  But  such  a  system 
can  hardly  advance  knowledge.  In  reality  it  tends  toward 
the  static  rather  than  the  progressive  in  thinking,  because 
of  its  blase  generality  and  over-simplicity. 

The  use  of  the  idea  evolution  now  dominates  all  the 
sciences  and  practically  all  thinking  on  any  subject.  Be- 
ginning in  geology,  the  use  of  the  idea  spread  to  biology 
and  since  to  society,  morality  and  religion.  The  use  of  the 
idea  leads  to  the  effort  to  find  some  undifferentiated  origi- 
nal out  of  which  by  the  laws  of  evolution  has  evolved  the 

111 


THE  EELIGIO1ST  OF  SCIENCE 

present  form.  Geology  has  selected  the  firemist,  "biology  the 
protoplasm,  while  other  sciences  select  instinct,  self-preser- 
vation, fear  or  other  originals.  There  is  therefore  to-day 
a  specific  habit  of  mind  fostered  and  developed  by  this 
idea  evolution. 

This  search  for  and  selection  of  originals  is  at  best  a 
very  venturesome  task.  When  geology  selects  the  firemist, 
three  other  selections  are  possible  according  to  the  ancient 
philosophers.  Earth,  air  or  water  could  be  chosen  and  a 
good  theory  built  up.  The  process  of  reducing  could  be 
applied  from  water  to  fire  as  well  as  from  fire  to  water. 
The  fact  is,  that  by  the  same  process  of  reasoning  anything 
in  the  universe  could  be  the  original. 

It  must  be  observed  further  that  when  this  original  is 
fixed  upon,  both  it  and  its  evolved  product  or  descendant 
are  now  actually  present  to  the  mind.  Protoplasm  and  the 
highest  form  of  life  evolved  out  of  it  are  both  present  now 
at  this  present  moment.  The  reasoning  then,  in  order  to 
get  in  an  orderly  succession  must  introduce  length  of  time 
within  present  time — a  rather  developed  sleight-of-hand 
ability.  No  unknown  or  earlier  original  is  ever  selected 
to  head  the  succession  to  the  present. 

This  reveals  the  fact  that  the  elements  or  factors  which 
are  arranged  in  this  evolutionary  order  are  all  present  both 
at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  process.  Reference 
to  more  original,  unknown  forms  contributes  nothing  to 
the  argument.  As  far  as  the  process  is  concerned,  if  we 
eliminated  the  judgment  higher-lower  a  successive  order 
leading  from  highly  differentiated  to  the  simpler  could 
just  as  logically  be  executed.  This  would  point  to  the  fact 
then  that  the  main  point  in  evolution  is  not  the  successive, 

112 


THE  CREED— EVOLUTION 

orderly  arrangement  but  the  judgment  higher-lower.  This 
latter  can  be  made  and  no  violence  be  done  to  time. 

The  conception  of  an  eternal,  undifferentiated,  original 
or  primal  reality  which  is  the  abiding  reality  amid  the 
changes  is  one  which  cannot  be  fitted  into  a  rational  uni- 
verse. It  allows  of  no  real  distinctions  among  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  world.  It  is  a  conception  based  upon  iden- 
tity rather  than  upon  unity  amid  diversity.  To  reduce  the 
universe  to  such  undifferentiated  identity  is  to  negate  it. 
It  is  pantheism  and  subject  to  all  its  limitations  and  in- 
consistencies. 

There  is  a  symbol  used  in  the  process  of  evolutionary 
thinking  which  alone  limits  the  process  before  it  begins. 
It  is  the  symbol  of  the  straight  line.  All  evolutionary 
theorists  reject  the  symbol  of  the  circle.  Effort  is  made  to 
conceive  of  time  as  successive,  independent  units,  and 
change,  as  continuous  succession  from  an  infinite  begin- 
ning towards  an  infinite  end.  The  history  of  the  world 
and  the  present  forms  beginning  with  the  earliest  times  is 
constructed  as  though  following  this  straight  line  of  evolu- 
tionary change. 

Here  again  arises  the  natural  necessity  of  reasoning  by 
the  use  of  symbols.  The  two  which  present  possibilities  of 
usefulness  in  this  connection  are  the  straight  line  and  the 
circle.  The  latter  presents  many  opportunities  for  in- 
creasing knowledge  when  reasoning  is  done  from  analogy. 
The  cycle  of  water — steam — vapor — cloud — water  is  the 
familiar  one.  But  everywhere  in  nature  and  life  is  the 
cycle  form  observable.  Seeds  become  trees  of  their  own 
kind  and  then  seeds  again.  Human  life  passes  from  child- 
hood through  the  cycle  back  again  to  dependence.  The 

113 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

history  of  nations  shows  the  movement  from  city-state, 
through  kingdom  and  empire  back  to  its  point  of  beginning. 
The  circle  is  also  the  only  symbol  we  have  for  conceiving 
of  the  infinite  in  space  and  the  eternal  in  time.  The  uses 
of  this  symbol  for  philosophy  have  been  and  still  are  many. 

What  then  are  the  possible  uses  of  the  straight  line 
symbol  ?  It  can  be  used,  first  of  all,  only,  by  conceiving  of 
an  infinite  beginning  and  an  infinite  end  which  seems  to 
be  an  impossible  task.  Such  an  expression  as  infinite  be- 
ginning is  a  self-contradiction.  The  use  still  further  im- 
plies a  quantitative  conception  of  time  as  though  moments 
could  be  strung  on  a  string  like  marbles.  It  implies  the 
possibility  of  making  an  abstraction  a  separation — as  in  the 
case  of  the  selection  of  the  firemist.  This  has  to  be  treated 
as  separated  from  its  relations  so  that  its  contemporaries 
may  be  arranged  in  consecutive  order. 

Other  difficulties  also  appear.  The  old  question  concern- 
ing the  priority  of  the  hen  or  the  egg  applies  with  equal 
force  to  the  protoplasm  or  the  higher  animal  life.  If  evo- 
lution is  from  an  absolute,  eternal  matter  or  substance 
along  the  straight  line,  then  it  never  can  be  what  it  was  at 
the  beginning.  Either  the  original  is  taken  up  in  the  ap- 
pearance, which  then  is  the  real  or  the  phenomena  we  know 
are  chimera  and  science  is  impossible.  If  it  changes  it  can- 
not remain  itself  along  the  straight  line,  if  change  means 
anything.  A  thing  cannot  both  change  and  not  change  at 
one  and  the  same  time.  The  only  possible  conception  here 
is  that  of  the  whole  universe  in  process  of  change  moving 
along  a  straight  line — an  imagination  hardly  worthy  of 
presentation. 

Then  the  symbol  involves  a  conception  of  growth  based 

114 


THE  CKEED—  EVOLUTION 

upon  the  quantitative  idea  of  accretion.  The  straight  line 
moves  through  numerical  quantities  and  if  there  is  evolu- 
tion towards  a  higher  there  must  be  increase.  Now  it  is 
possible  to  enumerate  the  organs  or  parts  of  organisms  and 
arrange  a  sequence  from  one  onward  as  mathematics  de- 
termines. But  these  conceptions  fail  utterly  when  applied 
to  the  evolution  of  knowledge. 

Knowledge  does  not  wholly  proceed  from  the  part  to  the 
whole  nor  is  it  the  product  of  quantitative  accretion.  The 
single  statement  to  the  point  here  is  that  we  do  not  learn 
to  see  space  little  by  little.  The  child's  space  is  as  great  as 
the  man's,  namely,  whole-space.  To  know  is  to  know  the 
whole  world.  Nothing  absolutely  new  could  ever  come  into 
knowledge  because  to  be  known  it  must  at  least  have  spacial 
and  temporal  qualities.  Space  and  time  are  whole  ideas. 
What  we  call  new  knowledge  is  our  growth  in  the  under- 
standing of  our  knowledge  of  wholeness.  This  is  the  dis- 
tinction so  well  phrased  by  Hocking  between  idea  and  idea 
of  idea.  This  growth  moreover  is  not  in  a  straight  line 
but  comes  by  moving  out  in  all  directions  round  the  circle 
from  the  idea.  There  is  a  suggestion  here  of  why  the  child 
often  knows  more  about  religion  than  the  highly  educated 
man ;  he  sees  religion  in  its  wholeness  while  the  latter  too 
often  loses  sight  of  this  wholeness  in  the  multitude  of  his 
ideas  about  the  idea. 

This  symbol  further  lands  the  evolutionist  in  a  serious 
quandary  when  he  has  arranged  his  sequences  along  the 
straight  line  leading  up  to  man.  At  this  point  he  can 
hardly  stop  and  he  can  with  difficulty  go  on.  To  claim  that 
evolution  has  reached  a  goal  in  the  individual  and  that 
henceforth  there  is  no  further  advance  involves  the  return 

115 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

to  the  cycle  symbol.  The  individual  according  to  the 
theory  must  inevitably  sink  back  into  the  pit  whence  he 
was  evolved  or  be  lost  in  society,  which  eventually  will  meet 
the  same  fate.  This  phase  of  the  thinking  abandons  com- 
pletely the  straight  line  symbol. 

If  again  this  symbol  be  of  value  and  the  idea  universe 
or  organic  world  be  maintained,  then  each  stage  or  forward 
step  should  be  taken  up  into  its  successor  like  the  dissolv- 
ing moving  pictures.  Eliza  crossing  the  cakes  of  ice  should 
be  able  not  only  to  step  from  one  cake  of  ice  to  the  other 
but  take  along  the  last  with  her  at  each  step  or  dissolve  it 
in  the  next.  This  thinking  in  its  plainness  is  the  endeavor 
to  move  and  stand  still  at  the  same  time.  The  observance 
of  these  facts  must  be  the  reason  why  some  recent  evolu- 
tionists have  come  out  boldly  and  declared  that  the  only 
real  evolution  is  in  quality.  This,  however,  abandons  the 
main  fundamentals  upon  which  the  theory  was  founded. 
It  is  doubtless  nearer  truth. 

But  it  is  said  that,  irrespective  of  the  metaphysics  of 
the  matter,  given  the  protoplasm  the  world  of  life  can  be 
evolved.  So  if  we  take  a  flower  and  knew  it  altogether  we 
would  know  the  universe.  The  criticism  here  is  not  of  the 
work  of  the  scientist  who  studies  life  in  its  various  forms 
and  has  given  us  what  we  know  both  of  individual  organ- 
isms and  of  likenesses  between  different  genus  and  species. 
What  we  can  rightly  question  is  the  conclusions  which  are 
based  not  on  scientific  evidence  but  upon  certain  meta- 
physical doctrines.  Likeness  as  observed  is  not  identity. 
Likeness  does  not  necessarily  argue  evolution.  The  de- 
pendence of  consciousness  upon  the  brain  no  more  argues 
its  evolution  from  the  brain  than  vice  versa  the  brain  is 

116 


THE  CREED—EVOLUTION 

evolved  out  of  consciousness.  That  man  has  his  animal  side 
and  as  body  resembles  other  animals  is  not  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  argue  the  evolution  of  the  soul  or  conscious  judg- 
ment of  values  out  of  a  lower  animal  form.  This  is  the 
fallacy  of  reduction  again. 

This  suggests  one  of  the  practical  criticisms  of  the  mold 
of  thinking  engendered.  It  is  that  the  focussing  of  the 
eye  upon  the  past  and  upon  the  lower,  works  havoc 
with  the  judgment  of  values  and  the  exercise  of  the  ideal- 
istic potentialities  of  the  human  being.  It  is  a  very  ques- 
tionable policy,  when  one  would  know  an  organism  to  select 
the  lowest  and  poorest  specimen  for  study.  It  is  also  much 
worse  to  evaluate  the  higher  by  the  lower.  Granted  that 
the  bacon  we  ate  for  breakfast  this  morning  was  but  yester- 
day a  dirty  pig  it  was  nevertheless  excellent  bacon.  It  is 
a  fact  observable  on  every  hand  that  this  mode  of  thinking 
has  lowered  the  ideals  and  morality  of  our  time.  For  if 
the  original  and  primal  be  the  real,  then  how  can  the  logical 
conclusion  be  escaped  that  evolution  is  either  playwork  or 
a  disaster  ?  If  evolution  be  progressive,  then  the  highest  is 
the  standard  and  not  the  lowest.  If  there  is  progress  there 
must  be  real  change,  hence  the  lower  cannot  in  any  true 
sense  measure  the  higher.  But  the  aboriginal  and  germinal 
is  not  necessarily  the  more  real.  There  is  no  more  or  less 
in  the  reality  of  reality. 

This  evolutionary  thinking  has  for  most  men  come  out 
into  the  open  in  the  view  of  man  it  propounds.  The  main 
point  is  not  whether  mankind  came  originally  from  a  single 
pair  or  was  spawned  like  larvae,  nor  is  it  our  simian  ances- 
try. It  is  that  man  is  a  derived  and  therefore  secondary 
product.  The  only  reality  in  man,  as  one  often  quoted 

117 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

above  declares,  is  the  germ  cells  composing  his  body.  As 
an  individual  he  now  has  reached  the  zenith  of  evolution, 
so  must  pass.  This  is  his  destiny  to  pass  into  oblivion 
since  he  has  been  thrown  up  out  of  the  evolving  mass  at  a 
point  in  time,  hence  is  secondary  in  value. 

This,  let  it  be  observed,  is  the  logical  conclusion  of  a 
metaphysics  of  matter — the  germ-cell  theory.  It  is  a 
philosophy  of  pessimism.  It  is  rejected  by  that  inner 
judgment  of  man  which  rejects  for  example  such  teachings 
as  that  God  has  selected  a  certain  number  for  salvation 
and  the  rest  of  mankind  for  eternal  damnation.  It  is  self- 
suicidal  reasoning  and  self-deceptive  because  clothed  in  the 
glamor  of  truth.  It  is  the  mind  of  man  taking  pleasure  in 
its  self-reduction.  It  is  greatness  robbing  itself  of  its  own 
grandeur. 

Such  conclusions,  however,  are  not  necessary.  There  is 
a  view  of  both  the  physical  world  and  man  which  does  not 
require  this  tandem  formation  nor  this  reduction  of  one  to 
the  other.  It  is  moreover  the  best  which  always  judges 
the  poorest  and  not  vice-versa.  Man  is  the  measure  of  all 
things,  even  the  physical  world.  To  reduce  the  dignity, 
the  glory  and  the  immortality  of  man  to  germ-cell  eternity 
is  to  cut  the  nerve  of  progress,  destroy  civilization,  open  the 
door  for  all  the  animal  traits  and  introduce  the  beast-like 
struggle  which  terminates  in  the  survival  of  the  strongest. 
It  would  set  back  the  clock  of  progress  many  thousand 
years. 

This  is  of  course  not  argument  ad  hominem  but  ad  meta- 
pliysic-em.  It  would  be  merely  matching  dogma  with 
dogma  were  the  former  the  case.  The  argument  is  that 
these  pessimistic  and  destructive  conclusions  are  based 

118 


THE  CKEED— EVOLUTION 

upon  a  metaphysic  which  does  not  and  cannot  do  justice  to 
the  facts  concerning  man  and  life.  It  is  materialism  or 
naturalism. 


Evolution  never  properly  completes  itself.  Continuous 
change  or  creative  evolution  leaves  the  thinking  suspended 
in  mid-air.  To  what  purpose  is  endless,  ceaseless,  creative 
evolution?  Perpetual  motion  is  in  reality  static,  so  is 
this  not  a  denial  of  itself  ?  It  is  a  denial  of  reason  for  the 
highest  form  of  rationality  is  the  judgment  of  value.  If 
this  ceaseless  activity  is  mere  activity,  then  it  is  nothing. 
What  seems  to  be  the  best  note  that  has  come  out  of  the 
interpretations  or  teachings  of  evolution  is  that  in  reality 
there  is  evolution  only  in  quality. 

This  conception  presents  many  possibilities.  It  will 
imply  the  view  of  change  as  kaleidoscopic  whence  qualita- 
tive progress  is  possible.  It  will  avoid  the  error  that  ma- 
terialistic change  or  quantitative  change  is  ever  progress. 
Mere  change,  if  there  be  such,  from  the  simple  to  the  un- 
differentiated  is  not  progress,  unless  the  change  be  related 
to  a  judgment  of  value  or  approach  an  already  realized 
ideal  end.  Change  that  is  not  for  something  and  to  serve 
some  definite  end  is  not  progress.  It  will  thus  relate 
change  to  the  changeless  and  give  a  place  for  values  and 
reason  in  the  system.  It  gives  room  for  the  conception  of 
the  conservation  of  matter,  that  is,  the  physical  side  of 
the  universe,  but  not  for  the  absoluteness  as  implied  in  the 
metaphysics  of  evolution.  The  physical  or  material  is  one 
phase  of  reality  of  which  the  other  is  described  by  the  term 
spiritual  or  personal.  By  thus  omitting  the  isolated  abso- 
luteness of  the  physical  world,  and  the  over-emphasis  upon 


THE  EELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

the  material  aspects  of  time  and  space,  a  theory  of  qualita- 
tive evolution  is  made  possible. 

Such  a  theory  could  illuminate  and  systematize  many 
of  the  observed  facts  of  life.  There  is  a  development  in 
the  physical  history  of  man  from  a  small  beginning  to  ma- 
turity, but  then  comes  decline.  Here  is  the  cycle  from  dust 
to  dust.  But  there  is  also  another  development  of  the 
mind  and  of  the  soul.  The  mental  is  the  understanding  of 
the  knowledge  of  wholeness  which  increases  but  can  never 
be  complete  until  it  arrives  at  full  comprehension.  The 
soul  development  is  that  qualitative  side  of  knowledge 
where  judgments  are  made  on  the  basis  of  eternal  values. 
The  personality  is  measured  by  the  quality  of  these  judg- 
ments and  the  will  to  attain  unto  the  values.  There  is  a 
distinctive  evolution  from  the  "natural  to  the  spiritual," 
that  is,  from  the  lower  self-quality  to  the  higher.  This  is 
possible  only  because  there  is  a  higher  towards  which  we 
may  daily  move.  In  the  language  of  Christian  theology, 
there  is  a  birth  called  natural  and  there  is  a  birth  which  is 
"from  above."  In  this  latter  the  Other  World  is  given  as  a 
whole  but  not  the  full  understanding  thereof.  There  is 
then  a  qualitative  evolution  leading  up  to  the  time  when 
men  shall  see  Him  and  be  like  Him. 

Civilization  is  likewise  qualitative  evolution  toward  a 
definite  end.  This  progress  comes  through  struggle  and 
conflict  but  is  not  mere  struggle  and  conflict.  It  is  not  an 
evolution  distinct  from  that  of  individual  men  but  a  part 
of  this  latter  development.  The  evolution  proceeds  not  in 
a  straight  line  but  through  cycles  with  the  constantly  up- 
ward trend.  Civilization  is  social  relationship  qualified 
through  the  individual  outreach  for  the  ideal.  This  ideal 

120 


THE  CREED— EVOLUTION 

will  be  the  kingship  of  God  within  men  on  earth  and  its 
higher  complement  when  anticipation  becomes  realization. 
It  is  strenuously  argued  that  evolution  is  not  atheistic 
and  does  not  lead  either  to  materialism  or  to  pessimism. 
This  contention,  however,  does  not  agree  with  some  of  the 
facts  already  noted.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  dogma 
of  the  absoluteness  of  matter  can  lead  anywhere  but  into 
materialism.  The  philosophy  of  vitalism  does  not  relieve 
the  situation.  The  derived  nature  and  the  destiny  of  man 
as  pictured  is  pessimism.  The  explanation  of  God  really 
explains  him  away.  The  main  point  in  the  contention, 
however,  is  that  some  certain  devotees  of  the  theory  do 
not  think  themselves  either  atheists  or  materialists.  Some 
Stoics  achieved  noble  character,  despite  the  fact  that  the 
doctrine  of  self-sufficiency  has  been  shown  to  be  impossible 
for  mankind  in  general.  Stoicism  to  many  others  led  to 
suicide.  That  there  are  men  who  can  view  with  courage 
and  complacency  their  life  as  wholly  temporal  and  their 
destiny  as  the  continuity  of  the  germ-cells  making  up  their 
physical  body  is  a  possibility.  But  such  a  courage  and 
view  of  life  must  never  be  confused  with  religion.  Such 
views  will  never  lead  the  mass  of  mankind  anywhere  but 
into  pessimism  and  atheism. 


121 


CHAPTER  EIGHT 

THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION 

THE  expression  used  as  the  heading  for  this  chapter  is 
now  a  familiar  one.  It  is  evident  that  the  main  interest 
to-day  in  evolution  centers  round  the  teachings.  There  is 
no  longer  need  to  prove  the  theory,  so  it  is  claimed,  hence 
the  next  logical  task  is  to  draw  the  conclusions  and  infer- 
ences. This  is  logical  also  because  the  conception  of  re- 
ligion held  by  evolutionists  is  that  it  is  emotion  plus  a  set 
of  intellectual  beliefs  and  dogmas.  Over  against  these 
emotionally-born  beliefs  must  now  be  placed  the  rational 
teachings  of  truth,  that  is,  of  evolution. 

The  teachings  may  be  summarized  under  the  following 
heads:  creation;  progress;  man;  society;  morality;  re- 
ligion; evil;  revelation;  miracles;  freedom;  purpose; 
God.  The  claim  is  that  the  teachings  of  evolution  concern- 
ing these  subjects  present  a  religion  which  can  be  religion, 
and  at  the  same  time  rational. 

A  problem  rises  at  the  outset  concerning  the  possibility 
of  a  rational  religion  from  the  evolutionary  standpoint. 
Rationality  or  reason  and  religion  are  by  all  evolutionary 
writers  defined  as  incommensurables  or  as  belonging  to 
different  orders.  Reason  and  religion  have  each  an  inde- 
pendent ancestry  and  developmental  history.  The  lack  of 
any  necessary  relation  is  fully  emphasized.  A  man  may 
have  religion  according  to  Thompson  if  he  happens  to  have 
the  emotion ;  but  if  he  does  not  happen  to  be  so  fortunately 

122 


THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION 

endowed,  he  can  get  along  very  well  with  science  in  its 
place.  By  others  the  statement  is  made  that  science  and 
religion,  strictly  speaking,  deal  with  different  subjects: 
science  with  knowledge,  religion  with  faith.  How  then 
can  knowledge  and  faith,  reason  and  emotion  be  merged 
into  a  rational  faith  ? 

The  process  by  which  this  is  accomplished  is  an  interest- 
ing one.  Since  reason  and  emotion  are  incommensurables, 
a  go-between  must  be  discovered  or  invented  if  they  are 
ever  to  come  together.  This  is  ingeniously  invented  in  the 
distinction  made  between  intellect  and  reason.  Emotion, 
it  is  claimed,  has  an  intellectual  component  which  is  the 
source  of  the  dogmas  and  teachings  of  theology.  It  thus 
touches  in  its  teachings  such  subjects  as  the  creation  of  the 
world  with  which  reason  deals.  A  point  of  contact  is  then 
established  where  reason  can  correct  emotional  teachings 
and  provide  a  rational  theology. 

This  contact  is  made  in  still  another  ingenious  way.  It 
is  declared  that  religious  teachings  are  based  upon  human 
needs  and  desires,  hence  faith  and  its  intellectual  expres- 
sion are  the  product  of  desire.  In  religion  men  believe 
what  they  desire  to  believe.  Desire  then  uses  symbols  in 
its  expression  of  itself  which  secures  a  certain  satisfaction 
of  reason.  Here  therefore  a  point  of  contact  is  made  be- 
tween reason  and  emotion  through  the  use  of  symbol. 
Moreover  reason  controls  desire,  hence  there  may  be  a  ra- 
tional faith. 

Still  another  way  is  revealed  in  the  frequent  claim  that, 
"Where  science  ends  faith  begins."  This  is  a  tandem  rela- 
tion which  makes  religion  nothing  but  a  cook-book  of  left- 
overs. When  science  and  reason  have  explored  and  ex- 

123 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

plained  all  that  can  be  known,  then  men  may  guess,  specu- 
late, become  mystic  or  have  faith — as  long  as  nothing  is 
ever  declared.  For  the  moment  a  declaration  of  faith  is 
made  it  comes  within  the  realm  of  knowledge,  hence  is  out 
of  its  own  realm.  Men  may  have  faith  as  long  as  it  is 
mystic  emotion  and  harmless.  On  this  ground  many  men 
of  science  make  bold  claims  that  they  also  have  faith. 

It  will  be  admitted  that  much  intellectual  ingenuity 
has  been  expended  in  this  effort  to  get  across  an  imaginary 
chasm.  As  noted  above,  there  is  no  such  absolute  separa- 
tion between  reason  and  emotion.  Reason,  moreover,  is 
much  more  than  the  process  of  abstract  thinking.  The 
tandem  sequence,  emotion — intellect — reason  is  a  pure  fic- 
tion of  the  imagination,  the  product  of  a  mode  of  thinking 
which  must  arrange  sequences.  Then  again  religion,  as 
seen  in  any  historical  illustration,  reveals  more  of  reason 
than  emotion.  Human  thinking  makes  use  of  symbols,  but 
reason  is  not  divided  within  itself  and  does  not  need  to 
create  something  to  establish  its  own  unity.  Rationality  is 
not  a  separate  power  of  the  mind  but  a  phase  of  expression, 
just  as  emotion  and  will  are  phases. 

Moreover  faith  is  not  blind  emotion,  believing  "what 
you  know  tain't  so."  Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped 
for,  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen.  It  is  evidence  of  the 
highest  type  of  rationality.  We  walk  by  faith  and  not  by 
sight,  that  is,  we  live  and  shape  our  life  according  to  what 
the  inner  eye  sees  and  not  the  outer,  and  certainly  not  what 
emotion  commends.  No  man  sees  optimism  with  the  outer 
eye  yet  he  sees  it  so  clearly  that  he  makes  it  a  controlling 
factor  in  his  life.  No  man  sees  sacrifice  with  the  outer  eye. 
This  is  always  an  inner  conception  and  judgment.  Neither 

124 


THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION 

is  the  eating  this  or  that,  much  or  little,  nor  the  fact  of 
death  in  itself  sacrifice.  By  faith,  that  is,  seeing  from 
within  sacrifice  and  its  value,  we  measure  and  give  value  to 
certain  actions.  Moreover  there  is  no  real  sacrifice  ex- 
cept in  the  conscious  preference  of  a  higher  value  for  a 
lower  and  the  paving  of  the  price  for  the  higher.  So  it  is 
with  human  life.  Things  seen  are  temporal  while  the 
things  that  are  not  physically  seen  are  eternal.  And  this 
vision  is  not  emotion — it  is  the  supreme  reason.  There  is 
no  faith  without  this  higher  knowledge. 

The  uselessness  of  this  wasted  ingenuity  is  its  outstand- 
ing characteristic.  This  is  seen  heyond  the  gratuitous 
prohlem  of  trying  to  cross  an  imaginary  chasm,  that  be- 
tween  reason  and  emotion.  The  plain  fact  in  the  whole 
matter  is  the  claim  that  the  evolutionary  teachings  are 
superior  to  those  of  orthodox  theology.  Instead  of  stating 
these  teachings  and  the  metaphysical  bases  upon  which  they 
rest  and  leaving  them  to  their  fate,  it  seems  necessary  to 
attempt  to  forestall  all  criticism  by  this  appeal  to  the  iden- 
tity of  science  and  reason  and  the  abstract  definition  of 
reason.  The  very  rashness  and  dogmatic  temper  here  re- 
vealed, when  clearly  seen,  closes  the  discussion. 

That  all  these  explanations  and  harmonizations  are  need- 
less is  revealed  by  Conklin.  He,  too,  practically  covers  the 
ground  outlined  above  but  when  he  passes  into  the  discus- 
sion of  another  topic  he  straightway  forgets  it  all.  "The 
various  stages  and  phases  of  religion  represent  different  at- 
titudes of  mind  toward  the  fundamental  problems  of  exist- 
ence, such  as  the  origin  and  government  of  the  universe, 
the  constitution  and  order  of  nature,  the  origin  and  charac- 
ter of  man  and  of  society,  and  especially  the  mysteries  of 

125 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

human  life  and  death,  of  good  and  evil,  of  instincts,  emo- 
tions, intelligence,  and  consciousness,  as  well  as  the  aspira- 
tions and  ideals  of  individuals  and  of  society.  The  type  of 
religion  which  one  holds  is  the  reflection  of  his  beliefs  re- 
garding these  fundamental  things."  Here  there  is  no  more 
reference  to  contraries  or  to  emotion  but  religion  is  an 
attitude  of  the  mind  toward  problems  of  thinking  and  be- 
lieving. Beliefs  too  are  the  product  of  the  reasoning.  The 
only  real  difference  between  Professor  Conklin's  beliefs 
and  those  of  an  orthodox  theologian  is  that  the  former 
thinks  his  the  more  rational.  Distinction  is  not  of  kind 
but  of  quality.  Both  think  on  the  same  problem  but  being 
human,  and  following  different  lines,  each  arrives  at  a 
somewhat  different  conclusion. 

This  is  of  course  the  real  situation:  Which  religion  is 
the  more  rational,  the  religion  of  science  or  the  other  re- 
ligions of  the  day?  It  would  be  more  scientific,  undog- 
matic  and  fair  to  state  the  case  as  it  is,  and  omit  throwing 
dust  into  the  eyes  of  the  man  on  the  street,  specially,  by 
making  such  unfounded  claims  as  outlined  above. 

What  then  is  the  superior  rationality  of  the  teachings  of 
evolution?  Does  this  religion  of  science  make  it  possible 
for  a  man  to  be  religious  and  rational  at  the  same  time? 
nationality  means  the  three  things:  logicality,  purpose, 
value.  How  will  these  teachings  stand  these  critical  tests  ? 

The  conception  and  definition  of  religion  itself  may  be 
considered  first.  We  will  pass  by  attempts  at  genetic  his- 
tory and  take  the  one  definition  given  above.  This  is  the 
view  that  makes  religion  a  personal  matter  and  sees  it  as  a 
set  of  intellectual  beliefs. 

Reflection  upon  this  view  makes  religion  a  matter  of  in- 

126 


THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION 

tellect  rather  than  of  emotion  which  approaches  nearer  to 
truth.  That  each  man  is  responsible  for  his  religious  wel- 
fare and  not  dependent  upon  his  heredity,  environment  or 
society  is  one  of  the  basal  teachings  of  evolution  since  the 
individual  is  now  passing  and  society  is  to  take  his  place. 
On  this  ground  religion  has  passed  its  zenith  with  the  pass- 
ing of  the  individual,  since  society  cannot  reveal  or  possess 
individual  religion. 

There  is  also  a  dilemma  in  the  situation.  The  individ- 
ual must  stand  or  fall  alone,  dependent  upon  the  quality 
of  his  thinking  and  his  relation  to  his  beliefs.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  he  trusts  his  own  judgment  he  is  doomed  to 
disaster,  for  only  by  losing  his  own  judgment  does  he  find 
the  true  one.  We  must  have  our  individual  view  of  the 
universe  and  yet  we  dare  not  rely  upon  it.  The  point  is 
that  individual  judgment  often  means  taking  the  measure 
of  the  universe  and  God  by  the  pint  cup  of  our  scientific 
laws,  metaphysical  entities,  narrow  beliefs  and  dogmas. 
That  is  not  man,  but  undeveloped  man — the  measure  of  all 
things.  This  is  why  some  theologies  have  to  go  because 
they  are  too  shortsighted  and  shallow.  On  the  other  hand, 
while  we  can  have  no  judgment  but  our  own  we  can  escape 
narrowness.  He  who  wills  to  know  shall  know.  The  real 
greatness  of  man  is  seen  in  his  willingness  to  bow  down 
to  a  greater.  The  profound  truth  here  is,  that  he  who 
hath  God  hath  all  things.  Men  create  their  beliefs  concern- 
ing God  but  God  creates  men.  The  Christian  man  im- 
proves his  judgments  and  finds  quality  when  he  seeks  first 
the  wisdom  and  companionship  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
Jesus  takes  the  measure  of  men  and  of  institutions.  The 
Ten  Commandments  judge  men  and  not  vice-versa. 

127 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

There  is  also  a  certain  peculiar  quality  to  religious  be- 
lieving or  faith  which  differentiates  it  from  the  holding 
of  a  helief  as  truth. .  This  is  the  difference  between  science 
or  philosophy  and  religion.  The  origin  and  destiny  of 
man  may  become  the  object  of  investigation  for  all  of  these 
three,  but  the  results  or  knowledge  gained  will  be  received 
by  religion  with  an  added  vital  interest.  The  philosophical 
or  scientific  mind  is  satisfied  with  the  attainment  of  what 
is  conceived  to  be  truth;  but  to  religion  there  is  an  addi- 
tional evaluation  since  eternal  life  or  death  is  in  the  bal- 
ance. 

This  is  saying  that  religious  values  supersede  the  attain- 
ment of  truth.  There  is  a  special  and  unique  evaluation 
by  religion  of  both  science  and  philosophy,  a  fearless,  bold 
evaluation.  The  basis  for  it  is,  that  companionship  with 
the  source  of  truth  gives  a  standard  of  evaluation  which  is 
commanding.  It  is  the  judging  of  the  truthfulness  of 
truth.  This  is  why  religion  tires  of  logical  systems  and 
formulas  and  bursting  these  asunder  moves  in  the  freedom 
of  companionship  with  the  eternally  free.  This  is  why 
religious  men  reject  the  view  that  the  mechanical  and  nec- 
essary phases  of  life  express  the  all  of  real  living.  This 
is  why  religious  men,  when  the  ideal  demands  it,  buffet  the 
body,  choose  pain  instead  of  pleasure,  save  apparently  use- 
less lives  and  shoot  down  men  in  the  prime  of  life.  This 
is  why  religion  has  never  been  and  never  can  be  caught 
and  pressed  into  an  intellectual  system :  it  is  fundamentally 
radical.  Religion  judges  individual,  logical,  scientific  or 
philosophic  truth. 

There  is  thus  more  truth  than  guessed  at  in  the  state- 
ment that  where  science  ends  faith  begins.  But  the  truth 

128 


THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION 

is  not  in  the  meaning  intended.  The  truth  is  that  science, 
both  as  science  and  as  science-philosophy  rightly  seeks 
truth.  This  search  may  extend  to  a  view  of  the  whole  but 
here  the  intellectual  beliefs  find  their  terminus.  Religion 
not  only  inspires  efforts  at  rationalization  and  systematiza- 
tion  but  it  embraces  the  whole  within  its  consciousness  and 
evaluates  all  science  or  philosophy  can  propose.  It  does 
not  question  the  truth  within  the  field  of  the  scientist  but 
evaluates  it.  It  takes  a  personal  attitude  toward  the  whole 
and  this  judges  all  things.  Religion  thus  has  the  last  word 
but  in  another  sense  it  also  has  the  first. 

Intellectual  beliefs  do  not  come  by  mere  thinking  nor 
are  they  fully  evaluated  by  reasoning  in  the  scientific  sense. 
Religion  itself  is  a  productive  source  and  creator  of  beliefs 
and  knowledge.  Religion  gave  birth  to  science  and  philoso- 
phy and  maintains  the  conditions  for  their  prosperity. 
Religion  tames  the  animal  passions  and  creates  a  social  life, 
in  which  the  ever-present  urge  of  the  how  and  the  why  of 
things  and  of  life  may  find  its  exercise  and  satisfaction. 
Religion  being  from  one  angle  the  consciousness  of  the 
Other  World  as  a  whole,  is  constantly  producing  original 
knowledge  and  calling  forth  beliefs.  This  is  sometimes 
called  experience;  but  what  experience  can  a  conscious 
being  have  that  is  not  conscious  ?  The  confusion  is  often 
introduced  here  between  the  idea  of  the  whole  and  our  ideas 
of  this  idea.  No  man  has  ever  had  a  religious  experience 
in  which  there  were  no  religious  ideas.  Religion  is  thus  a 
producer  of  ideas  which  become  the  subject  of  intellectual 
beliefs. 

The  evolutionary  view  of  religion  is  thus  too  narrow.  If 
religion  were  but  each  individual's  personal  views  of  na- 

129 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

ture,  the  government  of  the  universe,  the  origin  of  man 
and  such  fundamental  problems  of  existence,  then,  of 
course,  a  man  could  think  his  religion  was  truly  rational. 
But  this  is  too  simple  a  statement  of  the  case.  Eeligion  is 
of  man  not  primarily  of  men.  Religion  is  universal  and 
not  individual.  Each  man  finds  religion,  not  by  the  exer- 
cise of  his  narrow  reasoning  but  by  being  obedient  to  the 
higher  call.  A  man  may  have  logically  true,  scientifically 
true,  and  philosophically  true  views  on  these  fundamental 
problems  and  yet  have  no  religious  view  nor  be  religious. 
Thinking  alone  is  not  religious.  Thinking  even  on  God 
may  not  be  religious  thinking.  It  is  possible  to  hold  true 
views  of  God  and  not  be  religious.  This  definition  and 
view  of  religion  is  thus  so  narrow  that  it  could  miss  re- 
ligion altogether.  This  conclusion  is  intensified  by  noting 
that  the  purpose  phase  of  reason  is  only  lightly  touched 
on,  while  the  value  phase  in  the  light  of  consciousness  of 
the  whole  is  entirely  omitted. 

The  teachings  concerning  God,  naturally,  should  find  a 
central  place  in  any  religion.  Evolutionary  doctrines  are 
both  negative  and  positive.  The  conceptions  negatived  are 
the  usual  ones,  that  God  is  the  creator  and  ruler  of  the 
universe,  is  supernatural,  and  manipulates  the  laws  of  the 
universe  according  to  his  will.  There  is  no  such  Being  as 
this  who  existed  before  the  world  and  man  was  created, 
who  created  the  world  out  of  nothing,  then  created  man  by 
direct  action  and  now  manipulates  the  universe  for  his 
good.  The  doctrines  of  the  eternal  conservation  of  matter 
and  of  energy  with  that  of  the  universality  of  natural  law 
forbid  acceptance  of  these  beliefs.  The  correction  of  be- 

130 


THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION 

liefs,  however,  does  not  necessarily  mean  disbelief  in  that 
"which  is  symbolized  by  the  word  "God." 

The  positive  side  of  the  teachings  begins  with  the  evolu- 
tionary genesis  of  any  belief  in  God.  The  beginning  for 
evolution  is  the  most  simple,  original,  primal  world-stuff 
or  form  of  life.  By  the  laws  of  nature  and  evolution,  in 
the  course  of  time  appeared  man  as  an  animal,  then  con- 
sciousness developed,  then  out  of  emotion  with  its  intellec- 
tual component  rose  religion  with  the  idea  God.  Thus  God 
is  not  the  omnipresent,  omnipotent,  omniscient  Being  of 
independent  existence,  for  his  existence  is  related  to  the 
evolved  emotion  and  belief.  Reason  may  correct  and  ra- 
tionalize the  intellectual  belief  but  it  finds  no  such  inde- 
pendent existence.  There  can  be  but  one  primal  Reality 
and  that  is  nature :  hence  God  must  be  related  to  belief. 

The  word  "God"  is  thus  a  symbol,  but  of  what?  Of  an 
object  of  metaphysical  speculation.  Since  science  covers 
the  known  universe,  what  lies  beyond  cannot  ever  be  known, 
but  we  may  amuse  ourselves  with  speculations.  God  is 
thus  at  home  in  the  realm  of  the  unknown  and  of  specula- 
tion. On  this  basis  the  science-theologian  can  say  that 
evolution  neither  affirms  nor  denies  the  existence  of  God. 
Quite  true.  This  is  the  usual  teaching,  but  a  new  turn 
has  been  given  to  the  thinking  recently.  This  sort  of  a 
transcendental  Deity  cannot  be  immanent  and  modern 
thinking  is  turning  towards  this  view.  Hence  the  new 
teaching  of  evolution  is  that  "God  is  in  nature,  the  reason 
in  all  national  law,  the  purpose  in  all  natural  processes, 
the  supreme  mind  and  will  of  the  universe." 

This  seems  to  be  a  fair  exposition  of  the  teachings. 
iWhat  sort  of  a  God — if  there  be  any  such  Being — is  here 

131 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

presented  ?  There  is  a  latent  inconsistency  to  be  noted  first 
in  the  teaching.  It  is  claimed  that  the  evidences  for  the 
existence  of  a  God  stand  quite  apart  from  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  evolution,  and  this  is  evident.  Evolution  has  all 
the  certainty  and  truth  of  science  and  reason  behind  it, 
while  the  evidences  for  the  existence  of  God  are  meta- 
physical. Evolution  is  based  on  the  known,  the  belief  in 
God  on  speculation  concerning  the  unknown.  Yet  the  be- 
lief in  a  God  is  one  of  the  products  of  evolution. 

The  inconsistency  here  lies  in  two  uses  of  the  term  evolu- 
tion.   The  one  is  the  conception  of  the  process  of  change 
and  transformation,  according  to  which  the  present  world, 
including  our  beliefs  and  ideas  has  come  into  existence. 
According  to  this  process,  not  God  but  the  belief  in  God  has 
been  evolved.     The  other  conception  is  of  evolution  as  a 
body  of  teachings,  just  as  theology  is  so  viewed.    This  con- 
ception is  an  abstract,  ideal  one,  almost  a  personification, 
which,  like  a  person,  uses  itself  as  subject  matter  to  create 
an  intellectual  system.    Thus,  according  to  the  first  defini- 
tion science,  metaphysics,  theology,  are  all  the  products  of 
the  process,  while  in  the  second  the  process  has  become  ra- 
tional judgment  whereby  science  is  established  truth  while 
theology  is  speculation.    Cooley  well  asks,  that  this  method, 
called  the  hypostasis  of  an  abstraction  be  carefully  guarded 
against.    Such  use  of  an  abstraction  far  exceeds  the  limits 
of  truth,  scientific  exactness  or  even  fair  play.    It  throws 
confusion  into  the  whole  argument  and  compels  these  evo- 
lutionary thinkers  to  both  affirm  and  deny  on  the  same 
page.    It  reveals  the  force  of  sentiment  or  desire  where  we 
•would  naturally  expect  scientific  clarity  and  truthfulness. 
It  is  only  because  of  this  duality  in  conception  that  an 

132 


THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION 

attempt  can  at  all  be  made  to  save  the  thinking  from  the 
just  criticism  that  it  leads  to  atheism.  As  a  matter  of 
history,  evolution  two  or  three  centuries  ago  was  frankly 
atheistic,  then  it  became  agnostic  while  to-day  Hudson 
judges  its  main  contribution  is  skepticism.  It  is  likewise 
a  fact,  that  the  logical  outcome  of  the  theory  of  the  evolu- 
tionary origin  of  God  denies  to  him  any  real  existence.  It 
is  plain  atheism,  for  it  not  only  rejects  modern  views  con- 
cerning God  but  reduces  his  existence  to  a  belief  or  a  specu- 
lation. Evolution  finds  no  supreme  personality  in  the  uni- 
verse and  the  efforts  to  save  the  theory  do  not  save  it. 

One  of  these  efforts  is  to  make  use  of  the  difference  be- 
tween primary  and  secondary  causes.  Science,  it  is 
claimed,  deals  only  with  secondary  causes.  But  the  science 
that  does  this  is  the  pure  science  and  not  the  science-the- 
ology which  here  speaks.  This  latter  deals  with  meta- 
physical entities  and  is  quite  entirely  outside  the  field  of 
pure  science.  Moreover,  the  distinction  made  between 
these  two  causes  is  made  on  the  basis  of  time.  There  is 
time  and  there  is  infinity  which  lies  back  of  phenomena, 
which,  according  to  science-metaphysics  is  temporal  and 
spacial.  Just  how  infinity  can  be  conceived  of  as  chopped 
off  and  placed  spacially,  immediately  behind  the  phenom- 
ena of  time  and  space,  requires  a  species  of  mental  gym- 
nastics beyond  the  known.  But  evolutionary  thinking 
seems  to  have  no  difficulty  with  infinite  beginnings  finite 
universe  or  a  limited  infinity. 

It  is  evidently  the  subconscious  force  of  this  inherent 
contradiction  in  the  theory  of  evolution,  which,  with  the 
force  of  external  critical  pressure  has  led  to  the  new  scien- 
tific exposition  of  the  immanent  God.  God  is  in  nature, 

133 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

the  reason,  purpose,  supreme  mind  and  will.  This  teaching 
is  decidedly  a  step  in  advance  since  it  brings  God  out  of 
the  unknown  into  the  known.  He  is  now  an  object  which 
science  discovers,  though  this  was  denied.  Science  is  no 
longer  left  with  the  choice  of  negation  or  affirmation, — it 
must  affirm.  The  belief  in  God  is  therefore,  not  the  prod- 
uct of  desire  but  of  reason,  since  science  and  reason  are 
practically  identical.  The  emotion  theory  is  discarded. 
God  must  be  related  to  reason.  He  is  likewise  discover- 
able since  the  world  is  knowable.  It  can  no  longer  be  said 
that  man  by  searching  cannot  find  out  God.  Since  he  is 
the  reason  in  all  natural  law  he  can  be  known  as  natural 
law  is  known.  Surely  this  is  no  atheistic  doctrine.  The 
theory  of  evolution  is  saved  from  its  exposed  vulnerability. 
But  does  this  not  pay  a  heavy  price  in  inconsistency? 
What  is  this  reason  hidden  away  in  the  mechanical  phase 
of  natural  law  ?  Reason  is  defined  as  the  ability  to  create 
generalizations  and  do  abstract  thinking.  Mechanisms 
do  not  think,  organisms  hardly  generalize  or  think  ab- 
stractly. Is  the  action  in  a  mechanism  rational?  It  is 
never  so  conceived.  Of  course  the  question  of  values  can- 
not enter.  There  is  no  personal  side  to  natural  law ;  whence 
then  reason  ?  Reason,  moreover,  is  declared  to  be  the  pos- 
session of  the  human  being  only,  how  then  is  it  the  posses- 
sion of  the  mechanical  or  organic  world?'  Reason  as 
controlling,  natural  law  is  denied.  How  then  grasp  this 
conception  of  God  as  the  reason  in  natural  law  ?  The  only 
way  possible  is  to  think  of  a  "shadowy  concomitant,"  an 
attenuated  aura,  or  some  such  metaphysical  imagination. 
Men  would  surely  acquire  sublimated  character  by  prayer 
and  companionship  with  this  spiritual  attachment. 

134 


THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION 

A  hint  at  a  positive  conception  is  given  in  the  distinc- 
tion between  law  and  chance.  On  the  basis  of  this  distinc- 
tion God  is  the  stability  and  constancy  in  natural  law. 
But  the  laws  of  nature  are  stable  and  constant,  and  while  it 
is  admitted  that  there  is  chance  in  the  process  of  evolution 
this  element  is  never  given  a  place  in  the  working  of  natu- 
ral law.  The  law  of  gravity  admits  of  no  chance  happen- 
ings, else  would  miracles  occur  which  is  an  impossibility. 
Indirectly,  this  teaching  makes  a  great  confession  and  one 
hardly  to  be  expected  against  the  background  of  the  de- 
scription of  natural  law.  It  is  that  the  faith  we  possess  in 
the  orderliness  and  constancy  of  the  world  in  which  we  live 
is  grounded  not  in  law,  but  in  God.  This  is  the  highest 
reason,  because  it  is  only  in  personality  such  a  faith  can 
be  truly  rooted  and  established.  But  it  looks  as  if  the  God 
in  natural  law  is  not  the  God  of  Christian  faith.  For 
natural  law  is  first  established  and  then  God  is  in  some 
manner  read  into  it.  Natural  law  would,  however,  func- 
tion just  as  well  without  this  sentimental  shadow. 

The  natural  query  presents  itself  whether  this  God  is 
material  or  spiritual.  If  the  latter,  then  the  element  of 
personality  enters.  If  personality  be  present,  then  there 
is  freedom  of  choice,  direction  and  action  in  obedience  to 
ideals.  Is  there  anything  of  this  nature  in  natural  law? 
Not  according  to  the  description  of  law.  The  mechanical 
conceptions  prevail.  There  is  no  freedom  within  natural 
law.  The  laws  of  nature,  moreover,  reveal  none  of  the 
truly  human  or  divine  qualities  since  they  are  inexorable 
and  unfeeling.  There  is  no  forgiveness  and  there  is  no 
regard  for  goodness  or  evil.  The  rain  falls  on  the  just  and 
on  the  unjust  and  pestilence  makes  no  selections.  The  rose 

135 


THE  EELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

amiles  and  smells  as  sweet  on  the  bride's  breast  as  on  her 
bier.  Where  then  is  there  anything  spiritual  in  this  con- 
ception ?  The  thinking  which  would  thus  endeavor  to  save 
a  theory  from  the  pitfall  of  atheism  does  it  the  questionable 
service  of  making  it  reduce  God  to  a  refined  materialistic 
shadow. 

The  God  we  know  not  only  exists  but  does  things.  The 
belief  in  him  creates  character,  improves  social  relations, 
moves  men  to  build  and  achieve.  To  use  familiar  language 
the  belief  works.  What  does  this  God  in  natural  law  do  ? 
What  influence  has  the  belief  in  him  or  it  upon  character 
and  civilization?  There  seems  to  come  an  exhilaration 
from  conceiving  of  God  as  immanent,  rather  than  as  tran- 
scendental, or  present  only  in  the  chance  happenings  in 
the  natural  world.  But  the  exhilaration  is  the  product  of 
the  conception  of  immanence  and  not  of  this  immanent 
God.  Modern  thinking,  under  the  spell  of  the  full  mean- 
ing of  the  word  universe,  feels  bound  to  apply  the  qualifica- 
tion eternal  both  to  the  physical  world  and  to  God.  The 
conception  of  the  immanence  of  God  is  logical.  But  this 
thinking  does  not  demand  that  God  be  reduced  either  to 
some  materialistic  essence  or  quality  of  matter.  It  states 
a  problem  in  dualism  which  philosophy  must  meet.  Con- 
tinuing with  the  basal  idea  of  universe,  and  beginning  with 
human  experience,  a  logical  philosophy  can  be  formulated 
in  which  these  two  phases  of  knowledge,  the  material  and 
the  spiritual,  can  each  find  its  proper  place  and  no  violence 
be  done  to  either.  This  result,  however,  comes  not  by  the 
process  of  negation  of  an  opponent  in  order  to  make  the 
mental  processes  move  more  smoothly.  It  may  be  added 

136 


THE  TEACHINGS  OF  EVOLUTION 

that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  immanent  without  the  super- 
natural. 

How  well  will  the  belief  in  this  God  work  ?  There  is  a 
law,  like  God  like  people.  What  is  there  in  the  character 
of  this  God  that  men  would  grow  like  ?  God  in  the  chris- 
tian  teaching  is  a  Father  and  henceforth  human  fatherhood 
takes  on  superlative  character.  God  loves  all  men  and  de- 
sires that  men  reveal  this  same  love  one  toward  another 
and  the  brotherhood  of  man  becomes  an  ideal.  Men  ob- 
serve that  social  relations  approximate  the  ideal  when 
lying,  stealing  and  murder  are  absent.  This  observation, 
however,  could  never  advance  beyond  the  contract  stage 
until  men,  in  their  fellowship  with  God  come  to  know  that 
these  relations  and  ideals  are  not  mere  social  contracts  but 
qualities  of  character.  God  is  true  and  has  respect  for 
human  life.  It  is  only  when  men  hold  this  belief  concern- 
ing their  God  that  they  themselves  strive  to  achieve  this 
character.  So  the  belief  in  a  forgiving  but  just  God,  a 
loving  God,  a  moral  God  works  in  building  up  human 
character  and  producing  men  after  God's  own  heart.  The 
absence  of  any  personal,  human,  or  character-making  quali- 
ties in  this  evolutionary  God  is  the  condemnation  of  the 
theory.  The  joy  men  find  in  nature,  in  gorgeous  sunset  or 
blazing  autumn  hedge  is  the  product  of  the  Christian  educa- 
tion and  environment  and  not  the  working  of  this  character- 
less nonentity,  the  evolutionary  God. 

It  is  therefore  difficult  to  conclude  otherwise  than  that 
the  theory  of  evolution  eliminates  God  as  a  real  existence 
and  personality.  He  is  not  the  primal  reality  nor  related 
to  it,  except  in  the  far-off  position  of  an  evolved  belief. 

137 


THE  KELIGIOtf  OF  SCIENCE 

rAnd  beliefs  are  temporary  and  disappear.  He  bears  no 
active  nor  vital  relation  to  the  universe.  He  could  be  elim- 
inated as  far  as  mechanical  and  organic  evolution  is  con- 
cerned and  the  world  go  on  as  usual.  "Mechanism,  law 
and  order  are  universal  and  have  been  so  from  all  eter- 
nity." The  efforts  to  soften  down  this  logical  and  apparent 
conclusion  only  add  confusion  without  enlightenment. 
They  may  try  to  save  the  theory  from  its  goal,  atheism, 
but  the  consequent  pessimism  is  as  great  an  evil.  If  this 
evolutionary  teaching  concerning  God  were  to  supplant 
the  Christian  God  for  one  generation,  the  observation  that 
what  took  a  thousand  years  to  build  can  be  destroyed  in  a 
day  would  find  a  new  verification.  The  passionless  splen- 
dor of  time,  fate,  death,  cannot  take  the  place  of  the  God 
of  the  universe. 


138 


CHAPTER  'NINE 

EVOLUTION  AND  MAN 

EVOLUTION  has  many  teachings  concerning  man.  Nega- 
tively speaking,  it  denies  his  special  creation ;  the  teaching 
that  he  is  unrelated  to  other  animals  and  the  organic  world ; 
that  he  belongs  to  a  kingdom  by  himself;  that  he  is  sub- 
ject to  any  supernatural  control  which  has  the  power  to 
manipulate  natural  law  for  his  benefit;  that  he  holds  a 
unique  position  in  the  universe ;  that  he  has  freedom ;  that 
he  is  master  of  his  destiny;  that  he  never  experienced  a 
fall ;  that  his  behavior  is  determined  by  idealism ;  that  he 
is  immortal  in  the  usual  definition  of  human  immortality. 

The  positive  teachings  make  him  a  derived  and  second- 
ary product  of  the  evolutionary  process.  In  due  course  of 
time  the  living  organisms  appeared  of  which  protoplasm  is 
the  original  specimen.  Then  by  the  laws  of  evolution 
plant  and  animal  life  appeared.  From  the  amoeba  has 
come  man  by  natural  evolution  and  no  interference  from 
without.  The  laws  which  govern  the  animal  world  govern 
also  human  evolution.  Mankind  was  originally  spawned 
as  larva  and  has  not  descended  from  an  original  pair. 
The  process  of  evolution  has  carried  man  to  a  point  where 
he  is  the  highest  animal.  It  has  given  him  language,  in- 
tellect, reason,  morality  and  religion,  all  these  gifts  being 
developments  according  to  evolutionary  laws  from  primi- 
tive potentialities.  The  gift  of  language  may  be  the  imme- 
diate cause  of  this  higher  development  or  this  end  has  been 

139 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

achieved  by  the  law  of  natural  selection.  Intelligence  arose 
with  the  increasing  complexity,  structure  and  organiza- 
tion of  the  nervous  system  plus  the  capacity  of  profiting 
by  experience.  Keason,  the  ability  to  generalize  and  do 
abstract  thinking  is  a  special  gift  peculiar  only  to  man. 
The  moral  sense  is  an  instinct  similar  in  nature  and  origin 
to  other  social  instincts.  Conscience  is  a  modified  instinct. 

The  phase  of  the  teaching  which  arrests  attention  at  once 
is  that  man  is  the  highest  product  of  evolution.  "There  is 
good  reason  to  believe  that  no  higher  animal  will  ever  ap- 
pear upon  the  earth."  Huxley  declared  that  the  laws  of 
human  evolution  ceased  to  be  operative  when  self-con- 
sciousness became  developed  in  man.  Conn  believed  that 
the  laws  of  the  evolution  of  animals  and  plants  apply  to 
human  evolution,  only  up  to  a  certain  point,  beyond  which 
man  has  been  under  the  influence  of  distinct  laws  of  his 
own.  Man  thus  occupies  a  unique  position  in  that  he  is 
the  terminal  point  of  evolution  and  is  the  product  of  spe- 
cial evolutionary  laws.  Evolution,  moreover,  according  to 
Conklin,  disclaims  any  further  responsibility  for  the  fu- 
ture of  man :  this  is  now  in  his  own  hands. 

This  teaching  carries  with  it  the  dual  note  of  familiarity 
and  of  the  unexpected.  As  orthodox  theology  it  is  familiar, 
because  man  is  always  given  the  place  of  superiority  in 
creation  and  a  place  unique  in  the  animal  world.  He  is 
the  real  climax  and  end  in  creation.  But  as  being  the 
teaching  of  evolution  this  turn  in  the  thinking  comes  as 
quite  a  distinct  surprise.  Evolution  is  creative  and  eter- 
nally continuous — how  then  can  it  come  to  a  climax  and 
place  a  period  in  its  continuity?  The  laws  of  mechanics 
operate  in  the  universe — how  then  comes  this  skip  or  break 

140 


EVOLUTION  AND  MAN 

in  continuous  mechanical  action  ?  The  universe  is  organic ; 
how  then  eliminate  one  part  or  atom  from  the  organism 
and  give  it  special  treatment  ?'  The  law  of  evolution  is  de- 
clared to  be  constant  and  unbreakable — whence  then  this 
change  of  mind  and  inconsistency  ?  The  reality  in  man  is 
the  germ-cell  or  the  eternal  substance — whence  then  this 
change  of  germ-cell  which  leaves  behind  the  law  of  evolu- 
tion and  introduces  new  and  different  laws?  Law  is  con- 
stant and  uniform — whence  then  these  two  kinds  independ- 
ent and  different  in  the  same  universe  ?  Nature  is  uniform 
in  action, — why  this  exception?  Whence  this  selective 
taste  in  a  world  of  nature  controlled  by  mechanical  laws  ? 

What  sort  of  a  process  is  it  that  produces  something 
greater  and  different  than  itself  and  then  finds  itself  out 
of  relation  to  its  product  ?  Surely  this  is  a  miracle  of 
miracles !  What  further  is  to  be  the  destiny  of  this  new 
creation,  which  is  in  the  universe  and  yet  not  a  part  of  it, 
since  the  eternal  creative  evolution  has  declared  man  be- 
yond the  working  of  its  laws?  The  teaching  requires  a 
heaven  to  complete  itself.  In  fact  evolution  is  hereby 
made  to  teach  all  the  doctrines  concerning  man  which  it 
repudiates  in  other  places. 

There  is  but  one  answer  to  these  queries,  and  it  is  not 
one  of  science  but  of  history.  It  is  the  history  of  the  move- 
ment of  science  away  from  science  into  metaphysics  and 
then  into  a  beclouded  mass  of  divergent  and  conflicting 
theories  and  teachings.  It  is  well  known  that  scientists  do 
not  agree  but  among  true  scientists  this  is  a  sign  of  prog- 
ress. Truth  is  discovered  by  test  hypotheses.  But  when 
the  science-theologians  disagree  it  is  a  sign  of  conflicting 
dogmatisms,  since  the  fight  is  over  the  teachings  of  science 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

or  specially  of  evolution.  The  teachings  depend  for  their 
validity  not  upon  any  established  standards  but  upon  the 
personal  predilections  of  the  scientific  thinker. 

The  evidence  for  this  judgment  is  immediately  to  hand. 
More,1  in  his  admirably  clear  exposition  of  the  limitations 
of  science,  shows,  by  reference  to  a  very  wide  survey  of 
modern  scientific  literature,  that  men  of  science  to-day 
have  quite  entirely  forgotten  what  pure  science  is.  Science 
he  shows  is  made  metaphysical  and  at  the  same  time  pre- 
tends to  supplant  metaphysics.  It  has  created  a  sort  of 
fictitious  world  in  which  the  laws  of  objective  or  physical 
phenomena  are  inextricably  confounded  with  the  deduc- 
tions of  subjective  psychology.  Being  himself  a  scientist 
and  not  a  theologian,  Professor  More  can  use  such  terms 
as  bigotry,  idolatry,  dogmatism,  personal  irritation,  scien- 
tific polemic,  and  not  be  accused  of  having  been  brought 
up  on  a  bottle. 

In  the  case  of  the  science-theologian  the  limitations  are 
left  still  farther  behind.  Not  only  does  he  deal  with  meta- 
physical entities  rather  than  scientific  observations,  but  he 
advances  to  teachings.  As  is  inevitable,  there  will  thus 
appear  about  as  many  varieties  of  teachings  as  there  are 
individuals,  for,  as  is  clearly  observable,  the  type  of  the 
teaching  depends  upon  the  tendenz  of  the  interpreter. 
One  biologist  says  of  his  fellows : 2  "Modern  biologists  sur- 
vey a  particular  phase  of  life  through  a  particular  mental 
facet  and  each  school  has  evolved  a  more  or  less  rigid 
formula  for  the  things  it  most  clearly  sees."  He  further 
adds  that  "the  precise  methods  of  modern  biologists  .  .  . 

1  "The  Limitations  of  Science." 

2  Patten,  "The  Grand  Strategy  of  Evolution." 

142 


EVOLUTION  AND  MAN 

have  not  clarified  man's  social  problems,  nor  given  us  large 
pictures  of  the  processes  and  products  of  evolution.  It  is 
clear  that  the  historic,  microscopic,  telescopic  and  pano- 
ramic methods  of  nature  study  have  their  respective  vir- 
tues as  well  as  the  defects  of  their  qualities.  ...  In 
their  attempts  to  portray  nature,  biologists  often  forget  the 
weakness  of  the  one  and  fail  to  utilize  the  strength  of  the 
other." 

This  statement  establishes  the  point.  The  teaching  of 
the  biologist  depends  upon  whether  he  has  abandoned  the 
precise  method  of  science  for  the  freer  philosophical  and 
theological  meditation,  or  upon  the  point  of  view  concern- 
ing nature  which  he  selects.  Professor  Patten  certainly 
declares  his  freedom  when  he  chooses  to  identify  evolution 
with  the  forces  of  construction  and  cooperation  in  nature 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  forces  or  facts.  By  the  same 
sort  of  individualism  the  teachings  of  evolution  are  now  so 
many  and  varied  and  departure  has  been  made  from  the 
original  conception  of  it  so  far  that  over-enthusiastic  teach- 
ers declare  it  is  identical  with  revelation,  being  the  real 
Christianity. 

When,  however,  these  individualistic  speculations  and 
offerings  are  laid  aside  there  still  remains  the  original 
question  of  the  bearing  of  the  theory  of  evolution  upon  the 
problem  of  man.  The  relationship  goes  much  deeper  than 
a  discussion  of  the  literal  interpretation  or  the  so-called 
scientific  interpretation  of  certain  passages  in  the  Bible 
presented  by  the  science-theologian.  The  modern  method 
of  biblical  interpretation,  the  literary  and  historical  has 
banished  the  literalism  which  has  pained  biblical  scholars 
as  much  if  not  more  than  men  of  science.  Such  dis- 

143 


THE  EELIGIOJST  OF  SCIENCE 

cussions  hardly  belong  to  any  study  of  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion. The  real  question  is  as  to  the  applicability  to  man  of 
the  general  principle  that  the  present  is  the  legitimate 
child  of  the  past  and  will  be  the  legitimate  mother  of  the 
future.  How  well  does  the  principle  work  when  applied 
to  human  beings,  men,  who  consider  themselves  the  mas- 
ters of  their  own  destiny  and  who,  as  free  agents,  shape 
their  lives  according  to  ideals  ? 

It  is  evident  that  those  who  champion  the  theory  feel 
that  here  is  the  crux  of  the  whole  situation.  The  workabil- 
ity runs  smoothly  when  organisms  are  being  dealt  with, 
but  the  facts  of  conscious  freedom  and  idealism  present  a 
serious  snag.  No  wonder  some  evolutionists  are  ready  to 
call  the  creation  of  consciousness  the  supreme  blunder  in 
the  universe,  while  others  seek  to  discover  consciousness 
even  in  the  inorganic  elements  of  the  universe.  In  order 
to  achieve  workability  and  thus  prove  the  theory  universal 
in  application,  strong  emphasis  must  be  placed  upon  the 
animal  side  of  man  and  originals  in  lower  forms  of  organic 
life  must  be  found,  out  of  which,  by  the  working  of  the 
natural  law  of  evolution,  the  human  intellect,  will,  reason, 
passions  such  as  love  and  hate,  moral  qualities  of  selfishness 
and  unselfishness,  and  religion  have  been  evolved. 

The  conviction  may  be  stated  that  the  theory  breaks 
down  quite  completely  at  this  point.  The  theory  of  evolu- 
tion cannot  account  for  man,  explain  man,  nor  compress 
him  within  its  narrow  limits.  The  mechanical  side  of  the 
human  body  and  the  organic  life  may  be  related  to  these 
phases  of  the  physical  and  organic  sides  of  the  universe. 
The  human  body  runs  like  any  machine,  and  on  its  organic 
side  is  subject  to  the  laws  of  nature.  The  human  body, 

144 


EVOLUTION  AND  MAN 

moreover,  resembles  that  of  the  ape  as  those  qualified  to 
know  declare.  This  body  also  returns  to  dust  as  do  the 
bodies  of  all  animals.  Many  of  the  actions  of  men  and 
especially  of  the  lower  types  resemble  strongly  those  of 
animals.  Between  the  higher  animals  such  as  the  dog 
and  the  horse  and  man  there  seem  to  be  many  points  of 
resemblance  beyond  their  common  animality,  such  as  in- 
telligence. Such  facts  come  from  observation  and  experi- 
ment. But  when  the  theory  goes  beyond  this  it  begins  to 
find  itself  in  serious  difficulties.  The  main  one  is,  that 
the  theory  which  is  at  home  and  can  find  illustration  in 
organic  nature  is  by  denotation  and  connotation  limited  to 
this  phase  of  life  and  hence  is  not  large  enough  to  deal  with 
man  who  is  a  spiritual  being. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  points  of  resemblance  noted 
between  man  as  a  physical  being  and  other  animals  would 
naturally  suggest  further  study  along  these  lines.  It  would 
be  interesting  to  try  to  arrange  a  sequence  of  animal  struc- 
ture beginning  with  a  simpler  form  and  ending  with  man 
even  though  all  the  links  cannot  yet  be  systematically 
forged.  The  boundaries  of  human  knowledge  are  enlarged 
when  groups  in  the  animal  world  with  marked  likenesses 
are  built  up.  Science  has  here  a  vast  and  legitimate  field 
for  exploration  and  the  opportunity  to  do  mankind  a  great 
service.  But  there  are  dangers  and  temptations  which  lie 
before  the  investigator. 

These  are  now  familiar  ones  but  familiarity  does  not 
excuse  them.  One  is  to  mistake  likeness  for  identity. 
Animal  likeness  is  not  really  animal  identity,  much  less 
spiritual  identity.  If  animals  think  and  have  ideals  all 
the  better  for  the  animal :  but  we  do  not  know  it.  If  any 

145 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

of  them  are  ever  transformed  into  men,  the  honor  will  be 
theirs ;  but  men  will  lose  none  of  their  dignity  by  the  oc- 
currence. But  no  animal  ever  has  become  a  man  as  far  as 
knowledge  goes.  If  identity  were  to  be  established  why 
not  argue  for  it  as  men  and  not  as  animals  ?  Why  take  the 
model  for  the  identity  from  what  we  do  not  know  as  man. 

Another  danger  is  to  define  uniqueness  as  merely  some- 
thing higher.  The  term,  higher,  properly  refers  to  degree 
and  not  difference  in  kind.  The  higher  knowledge  we  may 
possess  of  space  is  not  a  higher  degree  of  spatial  knowledge. 
So  the  knowledge  of  our  superiority  to  the  animal  is  not  a 
higher  degree  of  animal  knowledge.  The  uniqueness  of 
man  in  the  world  of  living  beings  is  not  merely  a  higher 
degree  of  what  is  embryonic  or  potential  in  all  others,  else 
there  would  be  no  uniqueness. 

Still  another  danger  is  to  cut  the  facts  to  suit  the  Pro- 
crustes bed  of  evolutionary  theory.  Either  the  theory  of 
evolution  must  remain  where  it  belongs  and  be  local,  or 
the  facts  relative  to  human  uniqueness  and  spirituality 
must  be  pressed  in  violently  or  otherwise.  To  overcome 
this  dilemma  nature  on  one  hand  has  been  endowed  with 
all  sorts  of  spiritual  qualities  and  then  on  the  other  the 
spiritual  side  of  man  is  reduced  to  an  evolved  product  of 
some  natural  phenomenon.  The  universality  of  the  theory 
is  thus  attained.  But  the  nature  thus  pictured  is  some 
ideal  creation  and  not  the  one  we  know.  Then,  further 
still  the  temptation  to  leave  science  behind  for  metaphysi- 
cal abstractions  leads  to  the  confusion  of  real  science  and 
what  is  attempted  as  a  science-metaphysics. 

That  the  evolutionists  recognize  the  size  of  their  problem, 
when  they  apply  their  theory  to  man,  is  evidenced  by  the 

146 


EVOLUTION  AND  MAN 

apparent  breakdown  of  the  theory  at  this  point.  Evolu- 
tion splits  here  into  two  evolutions — the  regular  one  and 
the  special  one  relating  to  man.  There  is  confusion  at 
this  point  so  it  is  difficult  to  give  any  clear  statement  of 
the  matter.  Evolution  is  both  continuous  and  temporal ;  it 
is  eternal  yet  ends  in  man.  The  only  logical  thinker  in 
the  group  is  the  out-and-out  materialist,  for  with  his  eter- 
nal matter  and  force,  and  eternal  creative  evolution,  man 
as  a  phase  of  matter  fits  logically  into  the  system.  The 
other  group,  who  would  respect  the  spiritual  side  of  man 
must  either  admit  two  evolutions  or  deny  the  scientific 
tenets  of  the  eternal  conservation  of  matter  and  energy 
and  the  eternally  continuous  side  of  evolution.  That  the 
thinking  of  the  latter  group,  even  though  inconsistent,  is 
superior  to  that  of  the  former  will  be  admitted,  but  it  is 
not  as  logical. 

What  evidence  is  given  that  man  fits  into  this  scheme  of 
eternal  evolution?  Distinction  must  be  made  between 
quantitative  and  qualitative  evolution.  We  can  trace  the 
latter  but  not  the  former  in  man.  Man  is  not  the  sum  of 
added  particles  or  of  quantitative,  successive  accretion. 
No  fossil  or  organic  half-man  has  ever  been  discovered  and 
never  will  be.  The  search  for  the  time  or  physical  condi- 
tions, attendant  upon  the  appearance  of  man,  as  man,  is 
not  the  search  for  the  origin  of  man.  The  gift  of  language 
may  be  noted  as  marking  an  epochal  hour  but  this  is  not 
the  history  of  man.  The  essential  quality  of  man  is  whole- 
ness. Just  as  the  knowledge  of  space  and  time  is  knowl- 
edge of  whole  space  and  time  and  not  the  sum  of  atoms  of 
spatial  or  temporal  knowledge  so  is  it  with  the  other  phases 
of  man.  Memory  adds  to  its  store  facts  and  information 

147 


THE  KELIGION  OP  SCIENCE 

but  the  addition  of  facts  is  not  memory.  Memory  is  the 
whole  and  is  distinguished  from  the  growing  sum  of  facts. 
The  moral  judgment,  good-evil,  right-wrong  is  not  built  up 
of  a  sum  of  moral  judgments  nor  abstracted  therefrom,  but 
is  the  absolute  in  the  midst  of  many  individual  judgments. 
Individual,  moral  judgments  are  possible  only  when  the 
absolute  is  present.  To  judge  an  act  right  or  wrong  im- 
plies the  general  in  relation  to  which  the  individual  case  is 
given  quality.  No  occurrence  is  ever  moral  or  immoral  in 
itself — it  becomes  so  when  a  personal  relation  is  estab- 
lished. Judgments  of  value  and  judgments  of  moral  value 
are  two  different  things.  Eating  an  apple  is  neither  moral 
nor  immoral  in  itself;  it  may  become  so  when  the  act  be- 
comes related  to  other  facts  of  personal  experienca  The 
mechanical,  being  impersonal,  is  never  related  to  the  moral 
nor  should  the  organic  ever  be  so  related.  It  is  possible  to 
apply  the  categories  of  moral  judgment  to  both  mechanical 
and  organic  acts ;  but  it  should  be  noted,  that  such  is  done 
without  any  knowledge  of  fitness.  To  interpret  the  uni- 
versal fact  that  individuals  die,  as  meaning  that  a  hen  dies 
to  preserve  the  race  of  hens  is  surely  overworking  the 
imagination  and  interpretative  faculty  or  giving  expression 
to  an  excess  of  sentimentalism. 

So  man  on  his  religious  side  improves  in  religious  qual- 
ity but  is  not  built  up  by  accretions  of  atoms  of  religion. 
The  development  of  religious  thinking  and  advance  in 
quality  of  life  and  civilization  are  not  the  development  of 
religion.  Distinction  is  well  made  to-day  between  the  his- 
tory of  religions  and  the  history  of  religion.  The  latter 
always  recognizes  the  knowledge  of  the  whole  as  the  charac- 
teristic of  religion.  The  study  further  reveals  the  quali- 

148 


EYOLUTIOIST  A1STD  MAN 

ties  of  absoluteness  and  universality  which  go  with  the 
idea  of  the  whole.  The  idea,  God,  and  the  history  of  the 
changes  in  the  conception  of  God  are  two  different  things. 
The  idea,  God,  is  a  whole  idea,  and  never  was  nor  can  be 
a  half  idea  which  waits  for  the  other  half  to  be  completed. 
The  same  holds  true  for  immortality  and  all  expressions 
of  man  as  man.  Even  emotion  is  a  whole  and  no  carpen- 
ter's product. 

It  is  for  these  reasons  that  evolutionists  are  forced  to 
make  an  exception  to  their  theory  in  the  case  of  man  or 
reduce  man  by  definition  to  a  materialistic  automaton. 
The  denial  on  their  part  then,  of  a  special  creation  for  man 
does  not  come  logically  from  their  premises.  Since  evolu- 
tion ceases  with  the  appearance  of  consciousness,  especially 
human  consciousness,  the  holders  of  this  theory  lose  the 
right  to  draw  any  conclusion  as  to  the  origin  of  man — 
spiritual  man.  On  the  other  hand,  the  thinkers  in  the  field 
of  religion,  whose  philosophy  of  the  universe  based  upon 
experience  and  reason  centers  in  personality  have  the  logic 
on  their  side  when  they  declare  for  a  spiritual  creation 
with  God  as  author.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  there  is 
no  evidence  that  man  as  man  has  been  evolved  out  of  lower 
natural  forms  or  organisms.  The  choice,  however,  remains 
of  believing  in  the  creative  power  of  the  physical  universe 
or  creativity  by  God  or  by  God  through  the  physical. 

Some  of  the  detail  in  the  working  out  of  the  theory  calls 
for  careful  scrutiny.  The  moral  sense  is  characterized  as 
an  instinct  like  any  other  social  instinct  yet  is  a  developed 
or  modified  one.  The  argument  is  added  that  it  may  be 
moral  sense  and  as  much  God-given  whether  genetically  it 
arrives  by  a  process  of  slow  development  or  is  given  by 


THE  KELIGIOJST  OF  SCIENCE 

single  creative  fiat.  This  is  true  if  we  consider  it  and 
evaluate  it  as  God-given  and  forget  the  genetic  history. 
But  this  is  not  done.  The  theoretical  genesis  is  used  to  de- 
termine and  explain  the  moral  sense,  and  questions  are 
raised  as  to  the  validity  of  moral  idealism.  It  is  declared 
to  be  instinctive  action  instead  of  conscious  moral  free 
action. 

This  evolutionary  line  of  reasoning  makes  the  initial 
mistake  of  not  distinguishing  between  moral  judgment 
and  judgments  of  morality.  The  former  is  the  judgment 
of  the  whole  and  absolute  (not  a  generalized  abstraction) , 
while  the  latter  comprises  the  results  of  the  exercise  of  this 
moral  judgment.  The  latter  will  vary  and  grow,  and  be 
modified  by  education  and  environment  while  the  former 
abides  changeless.  Then  having  slurred  over  this  distinc- 
tion, the  assumption  is  made  of  the  historical  succession 
from  the  lower  form  in  instinct  to  the  evolved  modification 
in  moral  judgment  and  character.  The  reasoning,  how- 
ever, must  either  admit  a  miracle,  a  long,  drawn-out,  slow 
one,  perhaps,  or  admit  identity.  If  the  instinct  is  different 
from  moral  judgment,  then  when  it  is  changed  it  is  no 
longer  instinct;  if  it  is  morality  in  potentiality  then  the 
process  is  merely  one  of  unfolding,  and  morality  and  in- 
stinct are  identical  except  in  degree.  This  fact  then 
eliminates  instinct. 

But  there  are  fundamental  differences  between  instinct 
and  moral  judgment.  One  is,  that,  whereas  the  instinct  of 
hunger,  to  choose  one  as  illustration,  is  satisfied  with  food, 
the  moral  hunger  is  only  whetted  by  temporal  satisfactions. 
Instinct  never  reaches  out  beyond  itself.  The  birds  built 
their  nests  in  Solomon's  temple  precisely  as  they  do  to-day. 

150 


EVOLUTION  AND  MAN 

There  is  satisfaction  for  instinct  but  never  achievement — 
much  less  progressive  or  qualitative  achievement.  Moral 
judgment  is  related  to  moral  achievement.  Moreover,  the 
animal  is  no  worse  nor  no  better  whether  it  eats  or  drinks 
but  man  is — whether  he  eats  or  drinks  unto  the  Lord. 
Further,  while  instincts  have  a  certain  ability — not  in- 
errant — to  select  the  palatable  from  among  the  poisonous, 
there  is  no  morality  involved.  Both  life  and  death  are  facts 
of  animal  existence  and  there  is  no  differential  evaluation 
as  far  as  nature  is  concerned.  There  is  no  morality  in- 
volved in  the  death  of  a  man  at  thirty  or  at  sixty:  the 
morality  is  present  in  the  character  of  the  man.  Instinct 
may  lead  to  the  preservation  of  life  or  as  it  often  does  to 
the  destruction  of  life,  but  the  question  of  morality  does 
not  enter.  Again,  instincts  are  so  "mixed,  braided  and 
fused"  because  their  objects  have  become  so  developed 
that  no  single  instinct  can  be  isolated  or  enumerated.  Lists 
of  instincts  or  of  primitive  impulses  of  man  are  the  result 
of  a  purely  arbitrary  process  of  selection.  The  judgment 
of  moral  value  is  on  the  other  hand  a  whole  judgment  and 
single. 

There  is  a  must  in  both  instinct  and  morality  but  it  is 
physical  in  the  one  while  it  is  spiritual  in  the  other.  The 
animal  must  eat  or  die  but  there  is  no  must  about  whether 
it  eat  or  die.  Nature  takes  care  of  life  and  death,  except 
where  man  has  learned  to  interfere  and  direct  her  activi- 
ties. But  when  a  man  says,  How  can  I  do  this  great  wick- 
edness and  sin  against  God?  entirely  new  and  different 
elements  enter.  It  is  the  spell  of  the  invisible  and  eternal 
which  calls  forth  willing  obedience  to  the  commanding 
must. 

151 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

Instincts  do  not  become  morality  but  the  moral  con- 
sciousness educates  them  to  fit  into  the  ideal  life.  Thus  it 
is,  that  the  predatory  instincts  may  be  educated  into  co- 
operative, the  selfish  into  serving  unselfish  ends  and  pug- 
nacity into  the  hate  of  hate.  There  is  no  normal  man, 
"dowered  with  the  hate  of  hate,"  but  men  may  be  educated 
morally  until  this  character  is  achieved.  Moral  character 
is  not  an  endowment :  it  is  an  achievement. 

Conscience  is  moral  consciousness  and  is  always  related 
to  authorities.  It  stands  over  against  instincts  and  judges 
them.  It  is  not  an  instinct.  It  always  refers  the  moral 
judgment  to  an  authority  above  itself.  It  never  agrees 
that  what  is  natural  is  therefore  right.  If  we  mistake  not 
the  meaning  of  Christianity  it  is,  that  religion  and  morality 
are  one  and  inseparable.  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord,  thy 
God  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  The  note  of  authority 
then  in  conscience  is  the  commanding  influence  of  the 
Other  World  and  its  values  in  our  conscious  life.  This 
speaks  with  a  must  in  its  voice.  Increasing  understand- 
ing of  this  world,  and  especially  of  the  personal  character 
of  it,  changes  the  character  and  quality  of  conscience,  for 
conscience  is  not  static.  Sin  is  missing  the  mark,  and 
men  can  know  this  only  when  they  are  conscious  of  the 
goal.  The  soul  in  which  the  revelation  of  the  goal  is  the 
most  advanced  is  the  one  which  can  speak  of  the  exceeding 
sinfulness  of  sin.  Thus  conscience  instead  of  being  a 
modified  instinct  modifies  and  educates  our  instincts  lest 
by  being  natural  we  miss  the  mark. 

The  question  of  the  priority  in  time  and  value  of  the 
individual  man  or  society  cannot  be  answered  off-hand. 
The  preference  for  the  social  hypothesis  is  natural  to  the 

152 


EVOLUTION  AND  MAN 

scientist.  The  symbol  of  the  organism  would  argue  in 
this  direction.  It  is  no  rejection  of  revelation  to  evaluate 
the  early  Hebrew  philosophy  which  inclined  towards  the 
opposite  view.  The  fact  in  each  philosophy,  both  the 
science  and  the  Hebrew,  is,  that  it  always  takes  two  to  make 
one.  If  there  were  ever  one  man  there  never  was,  except 
on  the  basis  of  the  belief  that  God  and  man  were  socially 
related.  It  is  another  fact  of  life  that  a  child  kept  from 
other  human  beings  will  never  develop  into  the  man  as  the 
other  child  does  who  lives  with  his  fellows.  Still  further, 
men  united  in  social  relationship  develop  qualitatively  and 
society  therewith  only  when  the  relationship  with  the 
Other  World  is  established.  Society  from  one  angle  is  the 
social  nature  which  sees  this  world  as  being  beyond  us  all, 
yet  sees  our  unity  in  God.  It  is  the  vision  which  sees  men 
as  possible  sons  of  God. 

On  the  basis  of  these  facts  a  view  of  the  relation  of  the 
individual  to  society  may  be  gained.  Society  is  a  rela- 
tionship between  individuals  and  not  a  tissue  uniting  indi- 
vidual units  as  far  as  we  can  observe.  Physical  contiguity, 
clan,  tribal  or  family  groupings,  or  bonds  of  social  contract 
or  necessity,  constitute  relation;  but  this  is  not  society. 
This  latter  is  a  quality  of  this  relation,  and  this  quality  is 
an  achievement  under  the  impetus  of  commanding  ideals. 
A  group  is  not  necessarily  a  social  relation,  but  the  rela- 
tions among  the  members  may  become  social.  This  inter- 
pretation is  based  upon  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  who  saw  in 
his  vision  the  individual  become  more  and  more  like  God 
and  the  social  relations  so  qualified  that  the  kingdom  of 
God  would  appear  on  earth.  His  vision  saw  this  latter  the 
result  of  the  former.  Men  were  to  be  born  again,  which 

153 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

meant  the  attainment  of  the  right  dual  attitude,  that  to- 
ward God  and  that  toward  man.  The  kingdom  of  God  is 
in  reality  the  kingship  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  men,  which, 
when  realized  means  the  brotherhood  of  man.  The  indi- 
vidual does  not  lose  himself  in  society  nor  does  society  as 
such  exist  without  the  independence  of  the  individual. 
The  individual  never  loses  his  identity ;  but  he  may  choose 
to  sacrifice  his  physical  life  if  by  so  doing  his  brother  may 
be  saved  from  missing  the  mark.  So  the  man  in  whom  the 
kingship  of  God  rules  lives  in  the  highest  and  saving 
sense,  when  he  continually  seeks  by  every  means  to  help 
one  who  needs  it  to  achieve  his  destiny.  This  is  service, 
which  is  not  menial  performance  of  deeds,  but  self -giving 
for  this  one  end.  The  motive  power  which  will  achieve 
this  ideal  is  the  knowledge  of  God,  whom  to  know  is  life 
eternal.  The  ideal  society  is  that  which  is  established 
when  God  and  god-like  men  are  related.  The  quality  of 
this  society  is  the  same  now  on  earth  as  it  is  of  the  heavenly 
society.  There  is  a  difference  only  in  degree.  Thus  the 
evolution  of  the  individual  reaches  a  terminal  only  when 
men  become  like  God.  Society  cannot  improve  or  progress 
except  as  individual  men  grow  greater.  The  individual 
never  dies  for  society  but  he  may  for  his  fellowmen. 

This  same  teaching  may  be  urged  as  a  Christian  inter- 
pretation of  progress.  Mere  change  is  not  necessarily 
progress.  Mere  creative  evolution  without  purpose  or 
value  is  not  progress.  Mere  thinking  may  not  spell  ad- 
vance nor  growth.  This  conception  of  advance  means 
change  which  moves  nearer  an  end.  The  physical  world 
may  be  in  process  of  change  but  advance  none.  The  es- 
sential fact  in  progress  is  the  endeavor  to  reach  a  goal 

154 


EVOLUTION  AND  MAN 

which  ever  recedes.  The  reach  exceeds  the  grasp.  This 
goal  is  known  yet  not  understood.  It  is  a  knowledge  of 
the  whole  which  is  completing  itself  by  fuller  understand- 
ing. This  in  other  language  is  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  that 
men  of  whatever  race,  or  color,  time  or  clime,  who  seek  to 
know  and  do  the  will  of  God  come  into  the  line  of  progress. 
Their  life  is  properly  orientated,  so  that  whether  conscious 
of  it  or  not,  they  progress  daily.  "When  saw  we  thee 
hungry  and  fed  thee  .  .  .  ?"  Unconsciously  the  chris- 
tian  character  grows.  Progress  is  not  any  mechanical 
rear  push  nor  the  results  of  the  functioning  of  organic  law. 
It  comes  as  men  achieve  more  and  more  the  character, 
which  as  a  whole  is  conceived  of  as  the  perfect  one,  hut 
which  is  approximated  daily  in  the  struggle  of  life. 

The  teaching  of  evolution  concerning  immortality  is  cer- 
tainly one  which  can  find  few  reasons  for  acceptance. 
Since  the  fundamental  reality  for  science  is  not  personal- 
ity, and  personality  is  a  derived  product,  it  follows  that 
the  teaching  cannot  speak  of  the  immortality  of  man.  Evo- 
lution to  be  logical  and  keep  in  mind  the  basal  canons  and 
laws  of  science  must  blur  the  distinction  between  mind  and 
matter,  between  the  world  of  nature  and  the  world  of  man, 
the  natural  and  the  spiritual,  and  virtually  reduce  mind  to 
a  functioning  of  matter.  Since  science  can  find  no  soul 
different  from  the  mind  and  the  body,  our  emotions,  mem- 
ory, character  and  ideals  must  be  identified  with  bodily 
changes.  Sin  and  crime  are  thus  largely  physical  brain  de- 
fects. Thus  the  destiny  of  man  is  the  destiny  of  the  germ- 
cells  which  make  up  his  body  or  of  the  eternal  matter  of 
which  he  is  phenomenal  change.  Of  the  two  age-long 

155 


THE  EELIGIOIST  OF  SCIENCE 

views  of  the  soul,  creationism  or  traducianism,  evolution 
naturally  prefers  the  latter.  The  soul  is  born  with  the 
body,  grows  with  it,  but  disappears  at  death  when  the  body 
returns  to  its  original  dust.  The  plain  teaching  of  evolu- 
tion is  to  deny  personal  immortality. 

There  are  efforts  on  the  part  of  some  to  save  the  situa- 
tion but  these  are  feeble  and  unconvincing.  Some  say 
boldly  that  man  is  immortal,  but  they  mean  physical  im- 
mortality and  nothing  more.  Some  would  declare  that  the 
individual  lives  on  in  society ;  but  nothing  better  is  offered 
as  the  future  of  society.  Mere  prolongation  in  time  is  not 
personal  immortality.  There  are  those  who  try  to  identify 
immortality  with  the  question  of  progress,  but  progress  to 
what  is  not  outlined.  Change  from  the  simple  to  the  com- 
plex, from  individualistic  conceptions  of  the  future  to  cer- 
tain social  ones  is  not  necessarily  progress.  The  goal  of 
the  preservation  of  the  race  is  not  given  any  attractive 
value,  since  no  reason  is  given  for  this  aim  or  valuable  end 
served.  Of  what  value  would  be  the  self-sacrifice  of  a  man 
for  the  race  if  there  is  not  individual,  personal  immortality 
involved  ?  No  "scientist  has  yet  tried  to  prove,  much  lesa 
teach,  that  the  race  is  immortal.  Still  others  would  have 
it  that  evolution  has  washed  its  hands  of  any  further  re- 
sponsibility concerning  our  destiny  and  the  future  is  in  our 
hands.  This  abandonment  of  the  problem  does  not  help 
the  case  when  the  validity  of  the  theory  of  evolution  is  at 
stake.  Then,  there  is  the  general  offering,  that  we  do  not 
know  and  cannot  know,  yet  one  may  believe  if  he  desires 
so  to  do.  This  gives  very  little  encouragement  to  believe. 

Thus  the  conclusion  stated  dogmatically  at  the  outset 
seems  valid  that  the  teachings  of  evolution  concerning  re- 

156 


EVOLUTION  AND  MAN 

ligion,  God,  man  and  immortality,  are  not  only  often  incon- 
sistent in  themselves,  but  they  negate  all  these  great  veri- 
ties and  fundamental  beliefs.  They  lead  to  skepticism, 
they  present  no  positive  grounds  for  either  an  adequate 
conception  of  God  and  man  or  for  any  value  in  living. 


157 


CHAPTEE  TEN 

THE  SEAL  CHEISTIANITY 

"CAN  this  religion  of  science  and  evolution  be  incor- 
porated in  the  organized  religions  of  the  civilized  world? 
The  religion  of  evolution  is  nothing  new,  but  is  the  old  re- 
ligion ...  of  Christ,  which  strives  to  develop  a  better  and 
nobler  human  race  and  to  establish  the  kingdom  of  God  on 
the  earth."  x  The  religion  of  science  is  thus  the  real 
Christianity  and  demands  a  place  among  the  organized  re- 
ligions of  the  world.  Here  speaks  the  spokesman  for  a 
great  multitude  of  modern  thinking  men.  If  true,  then 
science  has  made  the  great  discovery  of  the  age  and  has 
conferred  inestimable  good  upon  mankind.  To  have  come 
to  know  the  real  Christianity  is  a  real  achievement. 

On  what  grounds,  it  must  be  asked,  does  the  religion  of 
science  (or  evolution  for  this  means  the  same  thing)  make 
this  claim  ?  The  main  contention  is  that  herein  Christian- 
ity has  become  the  religion  of  reason  and  science.  It  has 
been  rationalized.  It  is  made  the  power  for  individual 
and  social  progress  which  its  founder  intended.  The  false 
identity  of  literalism  and  formalism  with  the  Christian  re- 
ligion is  exposed  and  banished.  Instead  of  making  intel- 
lectual assent  to  a  formal  creed  the  test  of  righteousness, 
Christianity  is  now  revealed  in  its  true  light,  which  is  dedi- 
cation to  a  life  of  service.  The  true  spirit  of  Christianity 

i  Conklin,  pp.  242,  246. 

158 


THE  REAL  CHRISTIANITY 

is  now  disclosed,  which  is  the  demand  for  uniformity  of 
aim,  not  of  belief ;  the  best  available  truth  and  not  absolute 
and  perfect  truth ;  evidence  and  not  authority ;  works  and 
not  words.  Christianity  is  further  revealed  as  being  both 
a  personal  and  a  social  religion,  in  that,  in  all  things  ex- 
cept spirit  and  purpose  religion  may  be  once  more  a  per- 
sonal matter — when  love  of  God  and  love  of  fellow  men 
will  be  the  one  requirement  for  mutual  fellowship  and 
service.  Christianity  is  redeemed  from  all  supernatural 
associations  and  revealed  for  what  it  really  is — the  king- 
dom of  God  on  earth.  The  teachings  of  evolution  concern- 
ing creation,  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  religion, 
God,  man  and  progress  are  the  real  Christianity. 

What  is  the  motive  power  which  will  make  this  modern 
religion  acceptable  to  men  and  what  is  the  means  whereby 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  be  established  upon  the  earth? 
The  motive  power  is  the  conviction  that  the  essence  of 
Christianity  has  been  discovered,  the  lead  of  reason,  and 
the  vision  of  the  future.  There  are  to  be  unnumbered  ages 
of  human  progress  upon  the  earth,  ages  of  greater  justice 
and  peace  and  altruism..  The  sense  of  cooperation  with 
Christ  in  carrying  on  this  continuity  of  unnumbered  ages 
is  the  culminating  urge.  The  methods  then  to  be  followed 
are:  improve  conditions  of  individual  life,  develop  and 
educate  individuals,  improve  ideals  of  society,  and  breed 
a  better  race  of  men.  WE  may  accomplish  these  results. 

Plainly  stated  then,  Christianity  is  seen  in  its  purity 
among  intellectual  men;  its  essence  is  its  rationality;  it  is 
the  worship  of  the  true,  the  beautiful,  the  good ;  it  means 
the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  which  means  better  living 
conditions,  more  education,  better  social  conditions  and  a 

159 


THE  KELIGIOlSr  OF  SCIENCE 

better  breed  of  men.  Education,  social  service,  eugenics, 
euthenics  is  Christianity  in  action. 

Three  vital  questions  are  here  forced  to  the  front.  The 
first  is  the  general  one  which  concerns  itself  with  the  identi- 
fication of  the  religion  of  science  with  Christianity.  The 
second  relates  to  the  identification  of  the  Christian  religion 
with  one's  private  individual  beliefs  and  convictions.  The 
third  is  the  practical  identification  of  Christianity  with  the 
cult  of  social  service,  with  its  thought  for  environment,  so- 
ciety, eugenics,  euthenics  and  programs  of  social  better- 
ment. 

The  answer  to  the  first  has  already  been  given.  'A  re- 
ligion which  virtually  negatives  belief  in  the  God  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  denies  immortality  to  man,  except  of  his  body, 
and  rejects  the  Christian  evaluation  of  man,  to  speak  of 
nothing  further,  is  certainly  not  the  Christianity  of  Jesus. 
The  claim  that  it  is,  cannot  be  made  upon  any  likeness  be- 
tween this  new  ism  and  Christianity,  but  is  the  product  of 
external  causes.  These  are  the  individual  desire  of  certain 
thinkers  and  the  individualistic  shaping  of  the  principles 
of  science.  Professor  Conklin  is  one  of  the  individualistic 
evolutionists  who  profess  to  follow  science  but  in  reality 
abandon  the  basal  canons,  laws  and  beliefs  of  science. 
Evolution  is  to  him  no  longer  a  theory  but  a  set  of  teach- 
ings; and  as  these  get  farther  and  farther  away  from 
science  they  become  fairly  good  preaching  though  unre- 
lated to  the  text.  Christian  education  and  environment 
are  in  him  too  strong  for  the  inherent  and  inevitable,  nega- 
tive and  skeptical  results  and  bearing  of  the  theory  of  evo- 
lution and  the  dogmas  of  science.  For  sooner  or  later  it 

160 


THE  REAL  CHRISTIANITY 

must  be  recognized  that  science,  neither  in  observation,  ex- 
periment nor  legitimate  theory  can  deal  with  the  spiritual 
nature  of  man.  The  theory  of  evolution  confessedly  breaks 
down  when  it  approaches  this  fact.  When  overbold  think- 
ers refuse  to  recognize  legitimate  limitations,  the  inevita- 
ble result  is  the  reduction  of  our  real  life  either  to  a 
shadow,  a  functioning  of  matter,  or  race  continuity  with 
no  definite  goal  in  view  but  the  immortality  of  matter. 
Neither  science  nor  evolution  have  any  message  for  spirit- 
ual life.  Hence  the  so-called  teachings  of  science  or  evo- 
lution must  always  be  evaluated  first  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  author  of  them — his  tendenz.  Such  teachings,  fur- 
ther, must  not  be  confused  with  the  scientific  theory  of 
evolution. 

The  other  two  questions  are  phases  of  this  first  one. 
We  can  trust  these  over-enthusiastic,  dogmatic  teachers  to 
defeat  themselves  finally ;  but  when  the  added  strength  of 
science  is  given  to  these  two  very  prevalent  conceptions  of 
Christianity,  truth  in  the  matter  should  be  all  the  sooner 
sought  and  clarified.  More  light  on  the  first  of  these  two 
may  be  discovered  by  a  review  of  individual  views  and  by 
referring  to  some  historical  facts. 

The  question,  What  is  Christianity  ?  is  demanding  an  an- 
swer. Our  age  is  mentally  and  spiritually  alive,  so  is  not 
willing  to  take  traditional  or  authoritative  answers  un- 
critically. It  is  a  mark  of  life  and  growth  that  we  are 
passing  this  ever-recurring  question  through  the  alembic 
of  our  own  consciousness  and  have  determined  upon  an 
answer  that  will  satisfy  us.  It  is  not  a  question  that  can  be 
dogmatically  answered,  but  the  many  attempts  that  are 

161 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

made  will  doubtless  advance  us  nearer  the  truth.    Many 
answers  have  been  given. 

The  view  that  Christianity  is  an  absolute,  ab  extra,  origi- 
nal and  complete,  divine  insert  into  history,  an  absolutely 
God-given  revelation  with  no  human  conditioning,  does  not 
seem  to  fit  with  the  historical  facts  and  historical  origin. 
The  philosophy  of  absolute  separateness  at  the  back  of  this 
view  throws  it  out  of  accord  with  actual  history.  Chris- 
tianity is  not  the  only  religion  but,  as  we  think,  it  is  the 
superior  one.  The  Lutheran  conception,  that  Christianity 
is  a  divine  deposit,  essentially  complete  at  first,  and  resi- 
dent in  the  scriptures,  is  this  same  view,  with  the  exception 
of  the  present  place  of  residence  of  the  divine  deposit. 
This  view  does  not  take  into  account  human  experiences, 
historical  circumstances  and  the  fact  of  development. 
That  Christianity  is  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  the  Apos- 
tles would  make  it  a  type  of  metaphysical  speculation  and 
religious  knowledge  but  leaves  no  room  for  progress.  This 
view  makes  the  new  assuredly  the  untrue,  for  Christianity 
has  been  encompassed  and  expressed  and  guaranteed  in 
this  original  collection.  It  also  does  not  give  an  adequate 
place  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth  in  the  definition.  The  concise 
statement  of  Cardinal  Newman  that  Christianity  is  a  reve- 
lation, supernaturally  revealed  but  humanly  conditioned, 
is  a  move  in  the  direction  of  modern  thinking,  which  sees 
the  historical  and  developmental  side  of  our  faith.  Baur 
and  the  Tubingen  School  applied  the  historical  viewpoint 
rather  narrowly  when  they  declared  for  a  set  of  dogmas  or 
intellectual  beliefs  which  are  the  result  of  the  conflict  of 
the  philosophical  and  religious  ideas  of  the  day.  This  view 
however  emphasizes  the  fact  that  any  movement  necessa- 

162 


THE  EEAL  CHRISTIANITY 

rily  expresses  itself  in  certain  dogmas  or  intellectual  be- 
liefs. These  however  it  must  be  seen  are  the  dress  and 
not  the  body. 

There  are  scholars  who  take  still  other  and  differing 
views.  Christianity  is  a  religion  just  like  any  other  re- 
ligion, whose  value,  if  superior,  can  only  be  established  by 
historical  evaluation.  It  is  a  peculiar  type  of  religious 
consciousness  realized  within  the  community  of  Christian 
believers,  the  product  of  the  human  spirit  rather  than  any 
divine  insert.  This  view  has  the  special  merit  of  calling 
attention  to  the  fact  that  wherever  Christianity  is  surely 
discoverable,  there,  will  be  seen  the  repetition  though  not 
literal  of  the  religious  experience  of  Jesus  himself.  Har- 
nack  emphasized  the  fact  that  Christianity  is  essentially  a 
life,  but  he  overemphasized  the  view  to  the  beclouding  of 
the  fact  that  there  can  be  no  life  without  its  dress  in 
creeds,  forms  or  beliefs.  Abbe  Loisy  viewed  early  Chris- 
tianity as  formless,  simple  experience,  hence  concluded  that 
the  best  definition  is  that  of  collective  experience.  The 
Gospel  spirit  remains  unchanged,  yet  Christianity  is  more  a 
fact  to-day  and  is  better  understood  and  lived  than  it  was 
in  Apostolic  times.  The  growth  side  was  especially 
prominent  to  his  vision.  The  most  recent  view  is  what 
may  be  called  the  developmental  one  in  which  the  influ- 
ence of  environment  is  noted  and  the  whole  Christian  move- 
ment is  seen  as  a  phase  of  historical  religious  develop- 
ment. 

A  survey  of  these  various  efforts  at  definition  reveals  a 
great  variety  of  conclusions  and  of  observed  phases  of  the 
object  defined.  Is  Christianity  then  a  life,  a  collective  ex- 
perience, a  divine  insert,  a  set  of  intellectual  beliefs,  a 

163 


THE  KELIGIOST  OF  SCIENCE 

supernatural  revelation,  a  peculiar  type  of  religious  ex- 
perience or  a  distinctive  phase  of  historical  religious  de- 
velopment ?  The  variety  of  views  is  a  tribute  to  its  great- 
ness. Perhaps  it  is  all  of  these  and  more.  One  thing 
seems  certain,  which  is,  that  while  we  must  shape  our  own 
definition,  Christianity  is  more  than  any  individual  con- 
clusion. 

From  the  historical  standpoint  the  attempt  at  a  defini- 
tion of  Christianity  would  begin  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
His  personality  (real  and  not  metaphysical),  his  life  and 
death  and  his  teachings  constitute  the  core.  The  impres- 
sion of  his  personality  has  caused  and  is  still  causing  many 
attempts  at  expression  and  definition.  We  have  in  the 
gospels  at  least  four  different  ways  outlined,  by  which 
the  men  who  knew  him  tried  to  give  intellectual  expression 
to  their  belief  in  his  divine  character.  There  are  many 
and  differing  interpretations  of  his  teachings  and  of  his 
life.  Some  of  these  intellectual  expressions  and  interpre- 
tations have  hardened  into  creeds  and  authoritative  ecclesi- 
astical dogmas.  By  many  these  latter  are  identified  with 
Christianity,  and  when  some  of  these  forms  are  seen  to  be 
iut  of  tune  with  fact  many  think  Christianity  disappears. 
So,  too,  when  the  life  has  escaped  and  the  note  of  authority 
grown  more  sonorous  men  of  spirit  and  intellect  rebel. 
The  men  of  this  age  have  not  had  the  abundant  opportunity 
to  know  the  real  personality  because  He  cannot  live  in 
formalism,  ecclesiasticism,  materialism  or  forms  inharmo- 
nious with  the  times.  One  of  the  results  is  this  turning  to 
what  is  named  social  servce  as  an  outlet  for  subdued 
hungerings. 

There  is  one  other  fact  germane  to  this  study.  Jesus' 

164 


THE  REAL  CHRISTIANITY 

definition  of  religion  is  phrased  simply  in  the  love  of  God 
and  neighbor ;  but  this  is  not  a  mere  intellectual  belief  or 
dogma.  It  is  his  life.  He,  in  his  spirit  and  actual  living 
inbreathes  the  definition  with  meaning  and  content.  No 
man  can  take  this  definition  as  truth,  and  understand  it  as 
a  definition  of  Christianity,  who  does  not  know  somewhat 
of  the  One  who  not  only  spoke  it  but  lived  it.  There  is  no 
teaching  of  Jesus  that  can  be  understood  in  the  Christian 
sense  in  the  abstract.  Jesus  and  his  teachings  are  one. 

The  bearing  of  these  facts  upon  some  of  the  great  truths 
that  men  live  by  is  significant.  Jesus  must  have  known 
God  in  a  peculiar  sense,  for  he  is  the  only  one  of  history 
who  has  been  able  to  say,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  and 
find  men  ready  to  believe  it.  For  almost  two  thousand 
years  now  men  have  been  satisfied  with  the  God  Jesus  thus 
revealed.  God  is  not  the  product  of  emotion,  nor  a  de- 
sired belief,  but  the  eternal,  existent  Father  of  mankind. 
The  greatness  and  we  may  say  the  success  of  Jesus  was 
his  companionship  with  God.  Thus  to.  attempt  to  negate 
or  detract  from  the  existence  of  God  is  to  strike  at  the 
very  roots  of  Christianity.  Jesus  is  a  teacher  and  Savior 
of  men  because  of  his  relation  to  the  eternal  God. 

God,  to  Jesus  is  also,  not  merely  an  intellectual  or  emo- 
tional Great  Companion,  but  is  both  supernatural  and  im- 
manent in  this  world.  He  is  supernatural,  since  he  is 
wisdom  and  purpose ;  yet  he  is  not  aloof.  He  does  not  take 
men  up  out  of  this  world,  but  his  providence  is  manifest  in 
that  they  may  be  kept  from  the  evil.  Jesus'  view  of  God 
and  his  relation  to  this  world — if  we  mistake  not — might 
be  stated  as  the  belief  that  the  primal  Reality  of  the  uni- 
verse (qualitative  judgment)  is  Personality,  which  is  God. 

165 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

Philosophy  would,  I  believe,  endeavor  to  prove  that  imma- 
nence without  transcendence  is  an  impossibility. 

Man  occupies  a  position  of  great  dignity  in  Jesus'  teach- 
ings and  the  conviction  is  further  evidenced  by  his  acts. 
This  belief  of  Jeaus  is  not  due  entirely  to  the  influence  of 
the  narrow  view  current  at  the  time,  that  this  earth  is  the 
center  of  the  universe  and  the  only  populated  spot.  He 
could  believe  nothing  less  concerning  man  because  of  his 
conception  of  the  purpose  of  God  and  his  knowledge  of 
man.  Men  could  know  God  and  to  know  him  was  life  eter- 
nal. Hence  the  dignity  and  immortality  of  man  are  reali- 
ties. Man  is  the  master  of  his  destiny  when  he  knows  the 
meaning  and  purpose  of  life.  The  knowledge  of  this  mean- 
ing and  purpose  and  the  knowledge  of  God  are  one.  Hence 
our  individual  views  and  convictions  concerning  Christian- 
ity to  approach  truth  must  take  cognizance  first  of  all  of  the 
historical  and  experiential  facts  in  the  matter. 

Is  the  essence  of  Christianity  social  service?  The  em- 
phasis placed  by  the  gospel  writers  upon  love  to  one's  neigh- 
bor, as  well  as  upon  love  of  God  has  been  interpreted  in 
modern  language  as  social  service.  There  exists  to-day  a 
cult  known  as  the  social  service  cult.  The  membership  is 
made  up  very  largely  of  persons  outside  the  church  and  of 
organized  religion.  These  persons  are  not  atheists  nor  are 
they  irreligious,  selfish  nor  unspiritual,  but  men  of  re- 
spected worth  and  goodwill.  They  think  they  have  the 
substance  of  religion  and  are  living  the  real  Christianity 
through  social  service.  They  likewise  feel  that  they  can 
dispense  with  any  formal  worship  and  with  the  formal  and 
creedal  side  of  religion  as  well.  It  matters  not,  they  argue, 
what  a  man  believes  as  long  as  he  is  good  and  engages  in 

166 


THE  KEAL  CHRISTIANITY 

some  form  of  social  service.  Among  all  the  phases  of  re- 
ligion this  one  is  singled  out  and  made  the  whole.  The 
one  who  dares  to  evaluate  this  cult  is  usually  regarded  as 
lacking  in  the  humane  temper  and  the  appreciation  of  the 
•ocial  side  of  religion. 

The  cult  nevertheless  must  be  evaluated  for  the  sake  of 
all  the  good  people  in  it.  The  critical  examination  more- 
over Will  not  consist  of  the  argument  ad  Tiominem, 
though  the  suspicion  is  frequently  present,  that  the  great 
love  gome  men  bear  to  humanity  is  to  humanity  in  tha 
abstract  and  not  to  actual  men.  It  is  this  esthetic  emotion 
such  as  is  aroused  at  the  theater  which  produces  what  has 
been  termed  the  sob  stuff.  The  attention  paid  criminals 
is  often  inspired  more  by  the  criminal  than  the  actual 
man.  Charity  balls  and  raffles  are  of  course  religious 
affairs.  Every  good  thing  has  its  imitations. 

The  evaluation  of  this  cult  is  surely  quite  easily  arrived 
at.  Men  love  their  fellowmen  because  God  does,  because 
of  the  value  God  places  on  each  human  being  and  because 
in  the  larger  family  all  men  are  brothers.  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  This  is  the  spring  of  social  ac- 
tion. This  inner  love  issues  in  actions  both  negative  and 
positive.  Negatively  no  man  should  rob,  cheat,  lie  to,  mal- 
treat or  treat  his  fellowman  as  though  he  were  something 
less  than  one  of  God's  children.  The  Christian  spirit  aims 
at  justice,  which  can  only  be  arrived  at  when  there  is  an 
adequate  conception  of  God's  values — especially  of  the 
worth  and  dignity  of  man.  Personal  values  are  the  norm 
for  all  moral  and  social  judgments.  Positively  the  Chris- 
tian man  will  do  unto  others  as  he  would  they  should  do 
unto  him.  This  is  positive  love.  This  positive  action  is 

167 


THE  KELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 

always  directed  toward  persons  and  not  society.  Society 
in  the  sense  of  social  righteousness  and  idealism  is  the  by- 
product in  Christianity  and  never  the  central  theme.  To 
try  to  think  of  society  progressing  while  the  individual  has 
passed  his  zenith  is  to  think  of  a  town  growing  with  the  in- 
habitants dumb  or  growing  worse  daily.  Jesus  never 
visualizes  any  abstraction  or  metaphysical  tissue.  He  saw 
men  made  over  and  developed  into  the  image  of  the  High- 
est. He  never  talked  of  redemption  but  did  much  of  re- 
deemed men.  He  saw  the  possibility  of  the  full  kingship 
of  God  in  the  hearts  of  men  (interpreted  by  the  author  of 
Luke  as  a  worldly  kingdom  of  God)  and  he  urged  that  this 
express  itself  in  deeds  toward  our  fellowmen.  A  changed 
world  would  then  ensue.  The  blesseds  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  do  not  say  for  society,  but  blessed  are  the  peace- 
makers for  they  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Such  is  the  Christian  motive  and  socialized  individual- 
ism. What  now  is  the  good  aimed  at  ?  Jesus,  we  are  told, 
was  interested  in  human  suffering  and  joy,  in  all  human 
concerns  as  well  as  in  the  inner  religious  thinking  and  ex- 
perience. But  just  here  the  fact  is  too  often  overlooked, 
that,  as  far  as  we  can  discover  he  never  considered  such 
social  service  an  end  in  itself.  The  cup  of  water  is  given 
in  my  name.  Every  deed  he  did  or  conversation  he  held 
issued  in  a  renewed  or  deepened  religious  life.  Were 
there  not  ten  cleansed?  But  where  are  the  nine?  But 
one  returned  to  praise  God.  The  end  of  social  service  is 
that  men  shall  come  to  know  and  praise  God. 

Men,  however,  were  not  expected  to  arrive  at  this  goal 
by  chance.  The  Christian  social  service  is  characterized  by 
a  certain  method  of  approach,  a  certain  spirit  and  the 

168 


THE  REAL  CHRISTIANITY 

expectation  of  achieving  the  desired  end.  The  social  serv- 
ice is  to  serve  the  end  that  men  might  not  miss  the  mark 
but  come  to  themselves  and  realize  their  sonship. 

Evaluation  may  now  be  made.  It  is  the  great  mistake 
to  identify  religion  and  social  service  as  though  social  serv- 
ice were  the  whole  of  religion.  Whoso  does  this  misses 
religion  because  he  mistakes  a  means  for  the  end,  the  part 
for  the  whole.  He  misses  the  absoluteness  which  is  the  es- 
sential mark  of  religion.  He  may  miss  both  the  motive 
and  end  in  social  service.  The  judgment  might  be  haz- 
arded, that  the  cult  of  social  service  will  not  last  long 
where  the  element  of  worship  is  absent.  The  futility  of 
social  service  which  is  not  inbreathed  by  the  Christian  mo- 
tives and  expectation  is  apparent.  Better  environment, 
more  education,  purebred  stock,  do  not  necessarily  produce 
better  or  qualitatively  superior  men.  It  is  the  tragedy  of 
such  improvement  that  the  intellectual  and  the  wealthy 
classes  of  society  are  the  self-suicidal  ones.  It  seems  as 
difficult  for  the  intellectual  as  for  the  rich  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God  (that  is  welcome  the  kingship  of  God)  as 
it  is  for  the  camel  to  go  through  the  needle's  eye. 


169 


CHAPTER  ELEVEN 

CONCLUSIONS 

THE  results  of  the  critical  study  of  this  new  ism  may 
now  be  summarized  with  the  conclusions  which  seem  to  fol- 
low. 

It  is  stretching  the  truth  beyond  recognition  to  use  the 
title  Religion  of  science  or  Religion  of  evolution. 

Because  religion  is  given  small  recognition.  The  su- 
premacy of  religion  is  overlooked.  To  identify  religion 
with  science  is  to  lose  religion.  Philosophy  or  theology  not 
rooted  in  passion,  fact  and  institutional  life  misses  religion. 
The  facts  of  life  are  not  made  friends  by  being  pressed  into 
a  system  of  thought.  The  truth  offered  is  not  warmed  by 
personality.  Rational  culture  is  not  a  universal  human 
property.  There  are  no  hidden  resources  to  give  the  move- 
ment perpetual  freshness.  Religion  is  rationalized  when 
referred  to  sources  of  its  own  kind,  not  when  reduced  to 
something  else.  There  is  no  relation  established  with  his- 
toric religion.  The  teachings  are  not  the  authoritative 
ones  of  the  religious  soul,  but  come  by  way  of  theory. 
There  is  little  of  the  element  of  faith.  Religion  is  not 
merely  knowledge,  reason,  emotion,  intellectual  beliefs  or 
metaphysical  speculations,  but  is  more.  Explanations  are 
not  religious  motives  or  inspirations  and  much  less  so  when 
they  do  not  explain.  Religion  is  not  escape  but  conquest. 
It  is  not  only  rational  knowledge  or  explanation  but  a 

170 


CONCLUSIONS 

sense  of  companionship  and  partnership  that  removes  the 
strain  of  life.  Idolatry  of  science  is  not  religion. 

The  sources  of  strength  in  the  movement  are  not  discov- 
erable in  the  religious  and  moral  values  claimed  but  in 
other  outstanding  characteristics. 

These  are  the  dogmatic  tone,  the  great  gifts  of  real 
science,  the  favorable  attitude  towards  science,  the  ap- 
parent simplicity,  the  hitherto  uncritical  attitude  towards 
science,  the  general  favorable  attitude  toward  the  scientific 
method  and  the  fetich  of  the  love  of  truth.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  the  first  all  these  other  sources  of  strength  are 
illegally  used  to  help  propagate  certain  teachings. 

The  results  were  this  religion  to  prevail  would  be  any- 
thing but  desirable. 

It  certainly  leads  to  pessimism  and  skepticism.  Because 
human  interests  are  overlooked.  There  is  an  over-em- 
phasis upon  the  animal  side  of  man.  Religion  is  reduced 
to  the  class  of  left-overs  and  is  related  to  emotion  and  igno- 
rance. The  deductions  are  too  metaphysical  to  be  of  value. 
The  most  tremendous  conclusions  are  based  upon  insuf- 
ficient evidence.  The  explanations  of  God,  man  and  the 
future  rob  men  of  faith  and  hope. 

Its  principles  would  lead  to  war  because  the  eternity  of 
struggle  does  not  lead  to  perfection  of  individual  character 
and  immortality.  The  survival  of  the  fittest  is  easily  in- 
terpreted, as  the  will  to  survive  by  any  means,  or  when  a 
nation  considers  itself  the  fittest  the  corollary  is,  it  must 
dominate  by  any  means. 

It  would  reduce  religious  fervor.  Because  men  cannot 
be  enthusiastic  for  the  abstract,  the  negative,  Law  or  Force, 
The  self -sacrifice  noted  is  not  completed  by  delineation  of 

171 


THE  KELIGIOST  OF  SCIENCE 

the  worthy  end.  There  is  no  relation  established  or  unity 
with  personality.  The  controversial  element  is  too  promi- 
nent. 

It  would  strengthen  the  ideal  of  state  control.  Because 
the  individual  is  swallowed  up  in  an  abstract  society.  The 
individual  exists  for  this  society.  The  ideal  of  organiza- 
tion is  emphasized.  Individual  equality  the  basis  of 
democracy  is  denied. 

It  would  lead  to  materialism.  Because  the  quality  eter- 
nal is  predicated  of  matter  and  absolute  of  physical  law. 
The  good  is  not  characterized  as  opportunity  but  as  me- 
chanical surety.  The  distinction  is  not  made  that  while 
the  world  has  its  nature  the  human  self  achieves  character. 
Ideals  and  soul  values  are  reduced  to  a  form  of  matter. 

It  is  a  religion  for  the  select  few  only.  Because  it  is 
based  upon  metaphysics  and  theory  and  not  on  personal 
knowledge  of  God  or  conquest  of  life.  It  requires  esthetic 
and  artistic  appreciation  to  worship  truth,  goodness  and 
beauty.  The  main  motive  discernible  is  to  correct  theo- 
logical thinking,  not  to  create  religious  life. 

Terms  and  words  used  do  not  connote  what  they  do  in 
religious  thinking. 

Death  is  not  necessarily  sacrifice.  This  term  means  the 
deliberate  choice  of  death  because  continuity  of  life  is  of 
less  value  than  something  else.  Selfishness  is  not  self- 
preservation  but  the  valuing  of  one's  self  above  what  are 
higher  values.  There  is  no  selfishness  where  knowledge  of 
these  higher  values  is  absent.  Cooperation  is  the  deliberate 
agreement  and  arrangement  made  between  two  or  more 
persons  to  act  together  for  mutual  benefit.  It  is  always  a 
conscious  arrangement  and  is  the  product  of  an  ideal.  As- 

172 


CONCLUSIONS 

sociation,  relation,  organization,  working  together,  are  not 
cooperation. 

The  solution  of  evil  proposed  will  not  work.  Because 
the  rational  cure  still  leaves  evil  present  and  active.  The 
religious  solution  is  the  overcoming  of  evil  with  good, 
which  means  the  disappearance  of  the  evil.  The  way  of 
overcoming  is  through  belief  in  the  absoluteness  of  the 
good,  and  companionship  with  the  Personal  Good.  Men 
must  turn  away  from  the  evil,  cease  to  do  evil,  learn  to  do 
good. 

In  many  other  ways  the  religion  will  not  work.  Be- 
cause man  cannot  constitute  himself  his  own  providence. 
Only  those  men  who  have  gained  strength  from  on  high 
have  moved  the  world.  Men  never  conquer  by  fighting 
until  they  have  conquered  in  the  self -fight  first.  It  is  not 
as  a  man  thinketh  but  as  he  thinketh  in  his  heart  that  man 
is  man. 

Questions  may  be  raised  as  to  whether  the  claim  to 
being  truth  can  be  substantiated. 

Truth  works.  The  religion  which  produces  the  results 
noted  can  hardly  be  truth.  The  religion  is  said  to  aim  at 
establishing  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  yet  individual 
men  have  reached  their  zenith  and  the  only  abiding  reality 
is  the  germ-cell.  The  realities  of  this  life  are  obliterated. 
Subtle  religion  is  false  religion.  The  ethics  is  prudential. 
It  is  ever  reaching  for  that  which  it  denies.  It  assumes 
that  human  nature  is  essentially  good.  No  man  sucks  his 
morality  from  the  flowers. 

That  it  is  not  the  real  Christianity  with  God,  man  and 
immortality  left  out  is  apparent. 

THE  END 

173 


A  SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Conklin,  "The  Direction  of  Human  Evolution." 

Haeckel,  "Riddle  of  The  Universe." 

Cooley,  "The  Principles  of  Science." 

More,  L.  T.,  "The  Limitations  of  Science." 

Hocking,  "The  Meaning  of  God  in  Human  Experience," 
"Human  Nature  and  Its  Remaking." 

Hudson,  "The  Truths  We  Live  By." 

Hardwick,  J.  C.,  "Religion  and  Science." 

Boutroux,  E.,  "Science  and  Religion  in  Contemporary 
Philosophy,"  "The  Contingency  of  the  Laws  of  Na- 
ture." 

Hoernle,  "Studies  in  Contemporary  Metaphysics." 

Perry,  "Present  Philosophical  Tendencies." 

Ward,  "The  Realm  of  Ends." 

Pringle-Pattison,  "The  Idea  of  God." 

Merz,  "Religion  and  Science." 

Draper,  "Conflict  Between  Religion  and  Science" 

Trumbull,  W.,  "Evolution  and  Religion." 

Patten,  "The  Grand  Strategy  of  Evolution." 

Carr,  "Bergson's  Mind  Energy." 

Burroughs,  "Accepting  the  Universe." 

Thomson,  "The  Control  of  Life,"  "The  Bible  of  Nature," 
"An  Introduction  to  Science,"  "Evolution"  (Thom- 
son and  Geddes). 

Seltzer,  "Ostwald's  Natural  Philosophy." 


£   SELECTED    BIBLIOGKAPHY 

Argyll,  "The  Eeign  of  Law." 

Lodge,  "Life  and  Matter." 

Ames,  "The  Constitution  of  Matter." 

Zahm,  "Science  and  the  Church." 

Bonne y,  "The  Present  Relations  of  Science  and  Religion." 

Hall,  H.  F.,  "The  World  Soul." 

Bergson,   "An  Introduction  to  Metaphysics,"   "Creation 

and  Evolution." 

Miller,  "Bergson  and  Religion." 
De  Laguna,  "Dogmatism  and  Evolution." 
Hoffding,  "Modern  Philosophers." 
Lull,  "Organic  Evolution." 
Schmucker,  "Evolution." 
Scott,  "The  Theory  of  Evolution." 
Woodburne,     "The     Relation     Between     Religion     and 

Science." 

Coleridge,  S.,  "The  Idolatry  of  Science." 
Deshumbert,  M.,  "The  Laws  of  Nature." 
Leuba,  "The  Belief  in  God  and  Immortality." 
Nicolai,  "The  Biology  of  War." 


RETURN 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


-Ays-2- 


••   •  •..5a- 

DEtiii  l985 


DFH  1  n  Wflh 


ate  CIRC  D 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DDO,  5m,  12/80         BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


T>        ,- 
Berkeley 


GENERAL  LIBRARY -U.C.  BERKELEY 


Boooeoaaui 

-  •  * 


•    *:  *  V  ;*;.« 


